Compiled by Sunanda Deshapriya.
- Background and Overall Concerns
The Government of Sri Lanka has introduced the PTSA 2026 to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) of 1979. While the new Act includes some procedural safeguards, it keeps the main structural features of the PTA that have previously allowed serious human rights violations. The Act also expands criminal responsibility into areas such as expression, association, digital activity, and possession of information. This raises major human rights concerns.
- Definition of Terrorism
The PTSA uses a broad test based on both purpose and consequence, including political or ideological motives. The listed consequences include not only violence, but also cyber interference, disruption of electronic systems, and damage to property. These acts may not meet the international threshold for terrorism. Terms such as “propagating war,” “violating sovereignty,” and “serious obstruction” are vague and open to subjective interpretation. Although protests and strikes are excluded “by themselves,” the wording still allows protest-related incidents to be criminalised. The definition does not meet the requirements of legality, clarity, and necessity under ICCPR Article 15 and guidance from the UN Special Rapporteur.
3. Speech and Expression
Encouragement of Terrorism (Section 9 of the Draft) criminalises statements, words, signs, or representations made with intention, knowledge, or recklessness. The inclusion of “recklessness” greatly lowers the threshold for criminal liability. Terrorist Publications (Section 10 of the Draft) criminalises the distribution, sharing, transmission, or possession of material that could be understood as encouraging terrorism or being useful for terrorism. Defences (Section 11 of the Draft) exempt good-faith journalism, criticism, satire, and reporting in the public interest, but the burden of proving this may fall on the speaker. These provisions risk criminalising legitimate journalism, academic work, satire, and political speech, in violation of ICCPR Article 19 and the Rabat Plan of Action.
- Association and Proscription
Offences linked to proscribed organisations (Section 6 of the Draft) include a very wide range of conduct: membership, leadership, recruitment, harbouring, promoting, supporting, donating, wearing symbols, attending meetings, sharing information, or expressing support for a cause. These offences apply both within and outside Sri Lanka. This section criminalises symbolic expression, peaceful association, diaspora activism, and acts of historical remembrance, in violation of ICCPR Article 22 and the Johannesburg Principles.
- Arrest, Search, and Detention Powers
Arrest and search powers (Sections 19–24 of the Draft) are given not only to the police, but also to the armed forces and the coast guard. The term “reasonable suspicion” is not clearly defined. These sections allow warrantless stopping, searching, entry into premises, and seizure of documents and devices.
The Minister can issue Detention Orders for up to eight weeks, which can be extended with judicial approval. However, the executive branch retains primary control over detention. While there is oversight by Magistrates and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), this oversight is limited (Sections 28–35). Executive detention and the use of the military for policing conflict with ICCPR Articles 9 and 14, and with UN standards requiring judicial control over deprivation of liberty.
- Due Process and Fair Trial
Access to legal counsel is formally guaranteed, but in practice it may be restricted during the early stages of detention. Statements made to Magistrates may be admitted as evidence if certain procedural conditions are met (Sections 60–62). There is a risk that coerced or involuntary statements could still be admitted if safeguards are poorly enforced. Past experience under the PTA shows a high risk of torture, forced confessions, and long periods of detention.
- Duties to Provide Information
Failure to report suspected terrorist activity or to provide information is criminalised under Section 15 of the Draft. This includes providing information that is considered “false or misleading.” These provisions may pressure individuals to act as informants and can undermine privacy, family life, and trust within communities, contrary to ICCPR Article 17.
- Restrictions on Movement and Privacy
Restriction Orders, Curfew Orders, and Prohibited Places (Sections 64–66 of the Draft) impose criminal penalties for violations. These orders can severely restrict freedom of movement and peaceful assembly. The broad powers given to the executive risk disproportionate restrictions on rights protected under ICCPR Articles 12 and 21.
The Draft also introduces new provisions that did not exist under the PTA. It gives the Defence Secretary the power to declare “prohibited places,” making entry, photography, or drawing sketches a criminal offence. Penalties can include up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to three million rupees. These powers pose serious risks to journalists and media workers.
9. Digital Rights and Surveillance
Sections 52–54 of the Draft allow authorities to obtain information from service providers and government institutions, including digital data, communications, and personal information. Magistrates may also authorise the unlocking of encrypted data (Section 55). These provisions create a risk of intrusive surveillance without strong safeguards, violating the right to privacy under ICCPR Article 17.
- 10. Accountability and Oversight
Although the HRCSL and Magistrates have oversight responsibilities, there is no independent mechanism to review counter-terrorism measures. The executive branch retains extensive powers over detention, proscription of organisations, and the issuing of directives. Existing oversight mechanisms do not meet international standards for independence and effectiveness.
- Overall Assessment
While the PTSA introduces some procedural improvements compared to the PTA, it continues to allow executive detention, expands the role of the military in policing, criminalises speech and association, enables extensive surveillance, and relies on broad and vague definitions. As a result, the PTSA 2026 does not fully comply with international human rights standards and risks continuing or expanding the rights-violating practices associated with the PTA.