Sri Lanka’s new anti-terror law grants sweeping state powers to suppress social dissent - World Socialist Web Site

Sri Lanka’s government presented the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, or PSTA, to parliament on October 6. It is intended to replace the 1979 Prevention of Terrorism Act, or PTA. The government describes the bill as democratic reform, but the article says it retains broad powers that can be used against political and social opposition.

The PTA was introduced by President J.R. Jayawardene’s United National Party government in 1979. It first targeted Tamil militant organisations, including the LTTE. Later, it was used against JVP members, rural youth, political opponents and workers’ struggles. The proposed PSTA keeps several of the PTA’s central tools, including prolonged detention and military arrest powers.

The bill followed a government promise to abolish oppressive laws. The JVP/NPP’s 2024 manifesto specifically pledged to abolish the PTA. Yet at least 12 people were reportedly arrested under it after President Anura Kumara Dissanayake took office. Critics therefore view the replacement as continuity rather than genuine repeal.

Clause 3(1) defines terrorism as conduct intended to “unduly” compel a government or international organisation to act or stop acting in pursuit of a political or ideological objective. The bill also counts death, injury, hostage-taking, serious property damage and damage to infrastructure, public health or electronic systems as possible harms. “Substantial economic loss” is included too.

This wording matters because many lawful campaigns impose pressure by disrupting normal activity. A strike affecting transport, ports, energy or health services could be described as causing serious economic loss. A road-blocking protest or campaign against austerity could be portrayed as an effort to compel the government “unduly.”

Clause 3(4) says protest, advocacy, dissent or industrial action is not, by itself, enough to infer terrorism. However, the article warns that this does not stop authorities from prosecuting such conduct as terrorism. The definition therefore leaves significant room for official interpretation and possible political misuse.

The proposed law creates severe criminal penalties. A terrorist act causing death can bring life imprisonment. Other terrorist acts can bring up to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of up to 20 million rupees, described in the article as about US$60,000. The scale is substantial even before an alleged act causes deaths.

Clause 5 also punishes attempts, abetment, conspiracy and preparation. These offences can bring up to 15 years in prison, even when no terrorist act occurs. Other provisions carry additional penalties. For example, statements or signs that directly or indirectly induce terrorism can lead to 15 years, a 15 million rupee fine, or both.

The excerpt does not specify the maximum period for detention before trial. It does say international organisations warned about prolonged detention, military arrest powers and weak judicial safeguards. It also says the bill’s detention limits were disputed during expert review, suggesting detention rules remained a major unresolved concern.

The bill’s broad offences could turn ordinary political or social activity into a terrorism case if authorities interpret it expansively. Strikes that disrupt transport, ports, energy or health services could be linked to “substantial economic loss.” Road-blocking protests or anti-austerity campaigns could be presented as attempts to compel the government through political pressure.

Journalists face particular risks. Anyone who conceals an alleged terrorist’s whereabouts from police could receive up to seven years in prison. The article says this clause could target journalists who protect confidential sources. Section 9 also criminalises words or signs that directly or indirectly induce terrorism, with penalties of up to 15 years or a 15 million rupee fine.

Social-media administrators, platforms and internet providers could be prosecuted for possessing, distributing or enabling access to a “terrorist publication.” International organisations warn that such powers could support arbitrary detention, torture and repression of minorities, journalists, activists and political opponents. Workers’ and students’ organisations could also be affected.

Sri Lanka introduced the PTA in 1979 under President J.R. Jayawardene’s United National Party government. Its initial targets included Tamil militant organisations, especially the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. After communal war erupted in 1983, the law became a central instrument of repression against Tamil communities.

Its use later expanded beyond the civil war. During the unrest of 1988–90, authorities used the PTA against Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna members and rural youth. The law was also applied against other political opponents and workers involved in struggles. This history shows how a law presented as a counterterrorism measure can be used across different conflicts and against wider opposition.

Successive Sri Lankan governments promised to repeal the PTA but retained it. The JVP/NPP government also promised abolition in its 2024 election manifesto. However, at least 12 people were reportedly arrested under the PTA after President Anura Kumara Dissanayake was sworn in on September 23, 2024.

The article specifically warns that the PSTA includes military arrest powers. It also refers to police activity, police investigations and a seven-year penalty for concealing an alleged terrorist’s whereabouts from police. These references show that both the military and police would be central to enforcement under the proposed framework.

The bill’s wider structure includes arrest, detention and prosecution powers connected to alleged terrorism, proscribed organisations, speech and publications. International organisations criticised the combination of prolonged detention, military arrest powers and inadequate judicial safeguards. The article also says the law gives the executive and military sweeping powers against social and political opposition.

However, the provided excerpt does not identify every institution authorised to search or seize property. It also does not state which official may order detention, or give a complete chain of approval. Former Bar Association president Saliya Pieris said committee agreements on detention limits and magistrates’ bail powers were discarded from the tabled bill.

Executive detention is the holding of a person under authority exercised by the executive branch, often without an ordinary criminal conviction. In a terrorism framework, officials may detain someone because they suspect future danger, political activity or association, rather than because a court has completed a normal criminal trial.

Judicial oversight provides an independent check. A magistrate or court can examine whether the detention has a lawful basis, whether evidence supports it, whether officials respected procedural rights and whether continued detention remains necessary. Courts can also review bail, detention limits and allegations of mistreatment. Without that review, executive officials may hold people for long periods with little effective challenge.

The article says international organisations criticised the PSTA’s provisions for prolonged detention and inadequate judicial safeguards. It also reports alleged deviations from expert-committee agreements on detention limits and magistrates’ bail powers. The excerpt does not give the final detention procedure, but it presents judicial control as a central concern.