- The Government’s proposed Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill is presented as legislation to implement the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime and strengthen the fight against organised criminal networks. However, a close reading of the Bill suggests that it goes far beyond what is required by the Convention and creates an extraordinary criminal justice regime with far-reaching implications for fundamental rights and democratic freedoms.
-
The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill was drafted by an expert committee appointed by Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara during the first half of 2025. Acting on the committee’s recommendations, the Cabinet in March 2026 instructed the Legal Draftsman to prepare legislation. The relevant Cabinet memorandum was jointly submitted by Harshana Nanayakkara and Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala, under whose ministry the police fall. Despite the Bill’s far-reaching implications for criminal justice, civil liberties and fundamental rights, the Government has not publicly disclosed the membership of the expert committee responsible for drafting it. Nor is there any indication that meaningful public consultation took place before the proposals were translated into legislation.
- One of the most troubling aspects of the Bill is its exceptionally broad scope. Rather than being limited to organised criminal gangs involved in activities such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering or arms smuggling, the Bill applies to any offence punishable by four years’ imprisonment or more, together with a wide range of offences listed in its schedules. These include offences related to intellectual property, gambling, forest protection, customs violations and even obstructing a public servant. This expansive definition risks turning an organised crime law into a general criminal law with exceptional powers attached to it.
- The Bill also adopts an alarmingly broad concept of membership in an organised criminal group. Courts are permitted to consider factors such as association with known members, attendance at meetings, manner of dress, hand signs, tattoos and social relationships when determining whether an individual belongs to a criminal organisation. Such criteria raise the danger of criminal liability based on association, appearance or social connections rather than proven criminal conduct. This could have particularly harmful consequences for young people, marginalised communities and others who may come under police suspicion.
- Another major concern is the detention regime established by the Bill. Although it includes certain safeguards such as notification to relatives and the Human Rights Commission, it permits detention orders lasting up to two months at a time and allows detention to continue for up to one year. While judicial involvement is introduced at several stages, the framework resembles features long criticised under Sri Lanka’s anti-terrorism laws. Human rights advocates warn that prolonged detention before trial significantly increases the risk of arbitrary detention, coercive interrogation and ill-treatment. One of the most controversial features of the Bill is that it empowers the Secretary to the Ministry responsible for the Police to issue detention orders, authorising the detention of suspects for periods of up to two months at a time, subject to extensions provided under the law.
- The Bill further expands police surveillance powers in unprecedented ways. Authorities would be able, with judicial authorisation, to intercept communications, conduct digital surveillance, access electronic communications, extract data from digital devices and compel decryption of encrypted information. Critics have noted that powers removed from earlier drafts of the proposed anti-terrorism legislation appear to have re-emerged in this Bill under the banner of organised crime control. Such measures raise serious concerns regarding privacy rights, freedom of expression and protection from unlawful surveillance.
- Equally controversial are the provisions relating to evidence. The Bill modifies long-standing evidentiary safeguards by making certain statements by suspects more readily admissible in court. While it requires interviews to be audio-visually recorded, the legislation nevertheless weakens protections that were originally developed to guard against coerced confessions. Given Sri Lanka’s history of custodial abuse and torture allegations, any relaxation of evidentiary standards is likely to attract serious scrutiny from human rights bodies.
- Freedom of expression and media freedom may also be adversely affected. The Bill imposes restrictions on publication concerning victims and criminal proceedings, with criminal sanctions for violations. While the protection of victims is a legitimate objective, the language used may have a chilling effect on investigative journalism and public scrutiny of prosecutions, especially in high-profile cases involving state actors or powerful interests.
- Particularly troubling is the inclusion of a legal duty to provide information to authorities about suspected serious crimes. Failure to provide such information may itself constitute a criminal offence. This provision potentially undermines confidentiality, places pressure on family members and associates of suspects, and may create tensions with principles protecting against self-incrimination.
- Civil society organisations have warned that the Bill effectively recreates many of the most criticised features of the Prevention of Terrorism Act through ordinary criminal legislation. The Centre for Policy Alternatives has argued that compliance with the UN Convention does not require many of the extraordinary powers contained in the Bill. It has further criticised the absence of meaningful public consultation and questioned the timing of the legislation, which appeared alongside the Government’s proposed replacement for the PTA.
- To be sure, the Bill contains several safeguards absent from past security legislation, including notification requirements, access to lawyers, judicial approval for many investigative techniques and oversight by the Human Rights Commission. Nevertheless, these safeguards may not be sufficient to counterbalance the breadth of the powers granted to police and security authorities.
- The central human rights concern is therefore not the objective of combating organised crime, which is both necessary and legitimate. Rather, it is that the Bill employs overly broad definitions, expansive detention powers, intrusive surveillance mechanisms and weakened procedural protections that may be used far beyond the realm of organised criminal activity. In its current form, the legislation risks undermining due process, privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of association in ways that may ultimately weaken rather than strengthen the rule of law in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka Brief assessment based on the text of the draft PL 15938 [S] Crime Act_1791287837.pdf and publicly available legal commentary. [PL 15938 […287837.pdf | PDF], [cpalanka.org], [ft.lk]