Sri Lanka’s proposed Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill has opened a serious new debate over whether the National People’s Power (NPP) Government is fulfilling its promise to dismantle oppressive laws or constructing a new legal framework capable of reproducing their most controversial powers. Submitted to Parliament on October 20, 2026, the legislation has drawn a sharp warning from Human Rights Watch (HRW), which says its provisions could facilitate arbitrary detention, torture and other human-rights violations.
The controversy strikes at the heart of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s political mandate. During the 2024 election campaign, the NPP promised to abolish oppressive laws and protect civil rights throughout the country. Repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), long criticised for enabling abuses, was a particularly important commitment.
However the organised-crime legislation, alongside the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill submitted on October 6, raises questions about whether the Government is replacing discredited legal mechanisms or merely transferring their powers into new statutes.
According to HRW, the proposed legislation would create extraordinary powers outside ordinary criminal-law safeguards. Although the Government presents the measure as a tool against organised crime and a means of implementing the 2003 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, critics argue that its definitions and enforcement provisions extend far beyond clearly established criminal conduct.
One of the most troubling features is the definition of serious crime, which encompasses offences punishable by at least four years’ imprisonment, together with a broad list of offences under other laws. An organised criminal group is defined as three or more people acting together to commit serious crimes for financial or other material benefit.
The danger lies in how authorities could determine membership. Courts may consider meetings with known members, dress, hand signs, language, tattoos, associations and visits to premises associated with alleged criminal groups. Such indicators could generate suspicion, but they do not necessarily establish participation in criminal activity.
The distinction between evidence of crime and evidence of association is fundamental to the rule of law. Without clear thresholds and safeguards, legitimate social relationships and innocent conduct could become grounds for intrusive investigations or detention.
The bill would permit the secretary to the Ministry of Public Security to issue detention orders for periods of two months, renewable up to a maximum of one year. HRW warns that magistrates would lack discretion to set aside these orders. Bail would be restricted to the High Court, with suspects accused of serious crimes eligible for release only in exceptional circumstances.
More alarming still, the bill reportedly permits police-obtained confessions to be admitted in court. HRW argues that this could recreate an incentive for coercion and torture, reviving a longstanding concern associated with the PTA.
These provisions demand scrutiny beyond party politics. Combating organised crime is a legitimate responsibility of any government, but public security cannot become a justification for weakening judicial independence, due process or the presumption of innocence.
The NPP’s political challenge is therefore substantial. A government elected on promises of democratic renewal risks losing public confidence if legislation introduced in its name preserves the very powers it pledged to abolish.
Parliament must establish whether the bill can be fundamentally revised to provide enforceable safeguards or should be withdrawn for transparent public consultation. Without that scrutiny, the promise of reform could give way to a troubling continuity of state power.
