Government says controversial detention and terrorism provisions have been altered in proposed replacement legislation, placing the emphasis firmly on what the new law actually permits
COLOMBO – The Government says it has addressed some of the most controversial provisions of Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act in proposed legislation intended to replace it, opening another important test of the administration’s promise to reform the extraordinary powers available to the State.
Cabinet Spokesman and Minister Nalinda Jayatissa says the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism legislation contains changes to contentious provisions governing the definition of terrorism and detention of suspects. Those are among the areas which have attracted sustained criticism from lawyers, civil-society organisations and international human-rights bodies.
Few Sri Lankan laws carry as much historical baggage as the PTA. Introduced as temporary legislation in 1979, it survived decades of conflict, successive governments and repeated commitments to repeal or substantially reform it, while critics alleged that prolonged detention and other extraordinary powers created opportunities for abuse.
The State nevertheless has an unquestionable responsibility to protect the public against terrorism. Sri Lanka’s own history provides painful evidence of why security agencies require effective legal powers to investigate and prevent organised acts of mass violence, but that requirement does not remove the equally important obligation to protect due process and individual liberty.
The real test of the replacement legislation will therefore lie in its provisions rather than its title. Parliament will need to examine how terrorism is defined, the circumstances in which a person may be detained, how quickly a suspect must be brought before judicial authority, access to lawyers, the admissibility of evidence and the remedies available when State powers are improperly exercised.
The Government has an opportunity to demonstrate that effective national-security legislation and respect for civil liberties need not be mutually exclusive. Replacing the PTA will represent meaningful reform only if the law which succeeds it materially changes the protections available to a person confronted by the coercive power of the State.
Sri Lanka has experienced both terrorism and allegations of arbitrary detention and abuse. It consequently has every reason to construct legislation capable of protecting society against the first without creating conditions for the second.
Parliament should therefore resist judging the legislation by whether the letters “PTA” finally disappear from the statute book. The far more important question is what powers remain after they do.
