The Triad of Civic Suppression: Protection of the State from Terrorism Act, Prevention of Organised Crime Bill, and Draft NGO Act, + Online Safety Act, and Chartered Institute of Media Professionals of Sri Lanka Bill
Compiled by Sunanda Deshapriya.
1. Sri Lanka has a long history of emergency and security legislation being used beyond their stated purposes. The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), in particular, has been repeatedly criticised by the United Nations and human rights groups for facilitating arbitrary detention, torture, and the suppression of dissent. The current legislative proposals emerge in a context where accountability for past abuses remains limited and public trust in law enforcement and security institutions remains fragile.
2. The National Peoples Power (NPP) government has introduced a series of interconnected legislative measures under the banners of national security, anti-money laundering, and public safety. These include the Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA)[1], the Prevention of Organised Crime Bill[2], and the Non-Governmental Organisations (Registration and Supervision) Bill[3].
3. The proposed legislation to establish a Chartered Institute of Journalists could further reinforce this increasingly restrictive regulatory framework[4]. Together with the continued implementation of the Online Safety Act[5], these measures risk creating a layered system of control over digital expression, independent journalism, and civic engagement.
4. A comparison of proposed legislative measures reveals a growing pattern of expanding state authority at the expense of fundamental rights and democratic safeguards. The Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA) 2026, introduced under the banner of national security and counterterrorism, contains broad and ambiguous definitions of terrorism, extensive executive detention powers, and provisions enabling the deployment of armed forces in law-enforcement roles. These measures pose significant risks to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the right to liberty.
5. Similarly, the Prevention of Organised Crime Bill (2026), presented as a mechanism to combat criminal networks, permits administrative police detention for periods ranging from two to twelve months with reduced judicial oversight, undermining the right to a fair trial, due process guarantees, and protection from torture and arbitrary detention.
6. The Draft NGO Act (2026), justified as necessary for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing compliance, would subject civil society organisations to compulsory registration, enhanced governmental control, requirements to align with state policy objectives, and intrusive monitoring powers, including warrantless entry, thereby threatening freedom of association, freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to privacy.
7. These measures do not stand in isolation. The Online Safety Act has already established a framework through which online expression can be regulated and restricted using broadly framed provisions concerning false statements and harmful content, creating a chilling effect on public debate, political criticism, and independent journalism.
8. The proposed Chartered Institute of Journalists Bill, although currently subject to amendments following Supreme Court scrutiny, raises concerns about introducing a state-sanctioned regulatory structure for the media profession that could limit the independence of journalists and create new avenues for professional control and disciplinary action.
9. Taken together, the PSTA, the Prevention of Organised Crime Bill, the Draft NGO Act, the Online Safety Act, and the proposed Chartered Institute of Journalists Bill form a mutually reinforcing legislative architecture. While each is justified on distinct grounds such as national security, crime prevention, financial compliance, online safety, or professional standards, collectively they expand executive and administrative powers, narrow the space for dissent, and increase state oversight of civic organisations, media institutions, and individual citizens. The cumulative effect is a significant contraction of civic space and a legislative trajectory that risks accelerating Sri Lanka’s drift towards more authoritarian forms of governance.
10. The risks posed by this expanding legislative framework are amplified by the current political context. The government’s anti-corruption drive, emphasis on social justice, and the personal popularity of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake have generated significant public goodwill and political legitimacy.
11. Democratic erosion of Sri Lanka political landscape may occur not through abrupt authoritarian rupture but through the gradual concentration of power under a popular government that enjoy broad public support. In this context, the emergence of an increasingly restrictive legal architecture raises the prospect of Sri Lanka evolving into a “popular autocracy” – a system in which democratic mandates coexist with diminishing civic freedoms and weakened institutional checks on executive power. Growing civil society, media, and citizen opposition to these measures suggests that resistance to this trajectory is already emerging.
12. There is also a significant risk that powers created under these laws, particularly those relating to security, public order, and organisational control, could be disproportionately deployed against civil opposition movements, independent activists, and Tamil nationalist political mobilisation, further deepening social and political divisions. The central question, therefore, is whether Sri Lanka’s democratic renewal will be secured through inclusive economic progress and accountable governance, or whether increasing state control over civic and political life will gradually narrow the democratic space that such renewal requires.
13. Beyond concerns over rights and governance, the more fundamental challenge facing the government remains economic transformation. The sustainability of its political project will ultimately depend less on expanding regulatory and coercive powers than on reducing poverty, expanding economic opportunities, enabling the middle class to enjoy tangible improvements in living standards, and pursuing genuine ethnic reconciliation through the recognition and implementation of the political, cultural, and democratic rights of the Tamil people. Without such progress, economic gains alone are unlikely to secure a stable, inclusive, and democratic future for Sri Lanka.
14. The Triad of Civic Suppression in Brief
- Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA)
Gazetted on September 22, 2026, to replace the notorious PTA, the PSTA incorporates certain minor procedural updates—such as removing police confessions as admissible evidence and requiring audio-visual recording of interviews. However, domestic and international groups, including warn that it preserves the structural architecture of exceptional state power.
- Overbroad Definitions of Terrorism: The text retains vague terms regarding terrorism offenses, which can easily be weaponized against political dissent, labour strikes, journalists, and civic activists.
- Executive Discretion and Administrative Detention: The Bill continues to empower the executive (specifically the Defence Secretary) to issue administrative detention orders outside ordinary criminal procedure, allowing individuals to be detained for long periods without immediate judicial control.
- Sweeping Security Powers: Armed forces and police maintain disproportionate powers of warrantless search, arrest, and the authority to arbitrarily halt public assemblies.
- Chilling Effect on Expression: Vague prohibitions against “indirect encouragement” or “reckless” speech threaten to penalize legitimate reporting and advocacy.
- Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill
Published in the official Gazette on October 6, 2026, this Bill was heavily condemned by the HRCSL as “wholly incompatible” with both the fundamental rights chapter of the Sri Lankan Constitution and international human rights treaties. Legal experts note that its mechanisms mimic the worst elements of national security laws to police ordinary, domestic crimes.
- More Draconian than the PTA: The HRCSL formally characterized the framework as potentially more severe than the 1979 counter-terrorism regime.
- Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention: It bypasses ordinary judicial safeguards by permitting administrative detention orders issued by the Secretary to the Ministry responsible for the Police. Suspects can be held for up to two months at a time, extending up to one full year before trial.
- Risk of Torture and Coercive Interrogation: Human rights defenders warn that such prolonged pre-trial detention, paired with delayed magistrate reviews, drastically heightens the risk of arbitrary detention, psychological abuse, and torture during interrogations.
- Non-Governmental Organisations (Registration and Supervision) Bill (NGO Act)
Revised significantly in mid-2026 under the justification of satisfying Financial Action Task Force (FATF) anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) metrics, this draft broadens state control over the entire non-profit sector. Four UN Special Rapporteurs issued a joint warning stating the text directly undermines the right to freedom of association.
- Blanket Scope over Civil Society: Shifting away from the 1980 VSSO Act’s focus on localized social service, the draft expands its net to encompass any “non-profit oriented activity”. This subjects tiny, informal community groups, trusts, microfinance bodies, and human rights watchdogs to rigorous national state monitoring.
- Mandatory Alignment with Government Policies: A deeply controversial clause, Section 15(2), mandates that registered NGOs must “align with the policies of the Government.” This legally eliminates the independence of civil society, making it illegal for groups to challenge state decisions, land grabs, or systemic rights abuses.
- Intrusive Surveillance and Warrantless Entry: The Bill establishes a minister-appointed “Competent Authority” equipped with the power to enter NGO premises and seize records without a judicial warrant.
- Arbitrary Suspension and Economic Strangling: The Competent Authority holds unchecked powers to refuse registration, mandate renewals every three years, freeze foreign funding, or arbitrarily suspend organizations right before elections without independent avenues for appeal.
[1] See here for International Standards and Key HR Issues of the PSTA
[2] See here for Proposed Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill & Human Rights Concerns
[3] See here for Implications for the Right to Association and Freedom of Expression of the NGO bill
[4] The proposed Chartered Institute of Journalists Bill has been put on hold after the Supreme Court ruled that several clauses must be amended in a case filed by media organisations
[5] NPP government decided to appoint a committee to amend and maintain the Cyber Security Act, No. 09 of 2024 in a new form. But no amendments have been introduced.