Protesters gathered near Sri Lanka’s parliament on 4 November to demand the withdrawal of two proposed security bills, as judges began considering legal challenges to one of the measures.
The demonstration started at Polduwa Junction and moved towards the parliamentary access road. It was organised by the People’s Struggle Movement and supported by the Frontline Socialist Party. Police increased their presence around the junction, and the march caused traffic delays in the area.
Participants opposed both the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill and the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill. Some also called for the repeal of the existing Prevention of Terrorism Act, arguing that replacing it should not mean introducing new powers that threaten civil liberties.
The protest took place while the Supreme Court began hearing 26 petitions challenging the constitutionality of the organised-crime bill. A court challenge does not itself establish that a bill is unconstitutional, and the hearing does not mean that a final determination has been issued.
Two separate proposals
The government has proposed replacing the Prevention of Terrorism Act, a law introduced in 1979 that has long attracted criticism over detention and treatment of suspects. The terrorism bill was presented to parliament on 6 October and includes a provision to repeal the existing act if the replacement comes into force.
The organised-crime bill is a separate measure. It was published as a gazette supplement on 6 October and received its first reading in parliament on 20 October. Its stated purposes include preventing and prosecuting serious crimes and supporting cooperation against transnational organised crime.
Neither proposal should be treated as an enacted law. Both have prompted objections from civil society groups concerned about the balance between security powers and safeguards for individuals.
Concerns about detention and expression
The UN human rights office has acknowledged that the terrorism bill includes improvements on an earlier draft, including some safeguards for civic activity. It nevertheless says the definition of terrorism remains too broad and that detention powers need stronger independent judicial oversight.
The bill says that protest, advocacy, dissent and industrial action are not, by themselves, sufficient to establish the relevant elements of a terrorism offence. The UN office argues that this wording is not an explicit exclusion of protected activity and could leave room for differing interpretations.
The two bills also set out different rules for bringing suspects before a magistrate. In the terrorism bill, a person arrested by police must be produced within 48 hours of arrest. In the organised-crime bill, the corresponding period is 72 hours, with journey time excluded. Both texts provide for a magistrate to authorise a further period of police custody in specified circumstances.
Under the organised-crime proposal, an initial executive detention order may last up to two months. Extensions require consideration by the High Court, and the total period under the orders cannot exceed one year. Lawyers challenging the bill have questioned the role given to the executive in the initial detention decision.
The organised-crime bill would also allow a court to consider factors such as association, clothing and tattoos when assessing whether a person belongs to an organised criminal group. The provision does not make clothing alone proof of a crime. Critics argue that the factors could encourage judgments based on appearance or association rather than individual conduct.
What happens next
Among those challenging the organised-crime bill is the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. A lawyer appearing for the association told the court that a provision requiring prior permission to report proceedings under the proposed law could restrict court journalism.
The government says it wants a replacement terrorism law that is effective and consistent with internationally accepted principles. Transport Minister Bimal Rathnayake has said the government is open to discussing specific concerns about the bill.
For the demonstrators, withdrawal of both proposals remains the immediate demand. Parliament and the courts will consider the bills through separate processes; the legal challenges concern their constitutional requirements, not the outcome of the street protest.
Featured image: AI-generated illustration.
