Connect with us

News

ICJ opposes proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill

Published

on

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has expressed concern over the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill.It says it is extremely concerned, in particular, about clause 4(1)(a) of the Bill, which, if adopted in its current formulation, would introduce the death penalty for “the terrorism offence of murder”, ICJ said in a statement.

“Purported threats to national security, whether or not arising in connection with acts of ‘terrorism’, should not be used as a justification for the death penalty,” ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser Livio Zilli said.The Bill does feature certain improvements on the PTA. However, the ICJ considers that the Bill’s other problematic aspects clearly outweigh the positives, the statement noted.

In addition, the ICJ expressed particular concern over the overbroad and vague definition in clause 3 of “acts of terrorism” that can be interpreted in a manner that stifles dissent and to crush peaceful protests. It also pointed out that clause 16 identifies disobeying any direction issued under the Act as a “terrorist offence”. This creates a fresh category of offences likely to be misused by the present government and future administrations against any kind of opposition.

“If enacted as currently formulated, these vague and overbroad offences, similar to and building up on those contained in the PTA, are open to abuse and, as such, they violate Sri Lanka’s international legal obligations and the country’s own constitutional guarantees under Article 13,” Zilli added.

Highlighting that the ICJ has consistently called for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the ICJ renewed its call on Sri Lanka to repeal the PTA and immediately halt attempts to replace it with an even worse piece of legislation.

Full text of the statement: The ICJ is concerned that the newly proposed anti-terrorism legislation, if adopted as currently formulated, will give rise to a panoply of human rights violations and, much as the existing “Prevention of Terrorism Act”, is open to misuse.

On 22 March 2023, the government of Sri Lanka published the proposed 97-page “Anti- Terrorism Bill” (Gazette notification dated 17 March 2023), which, if adopted, would replace the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act No. 48 of 1979 (PTA). The Bill purports to do away with the provisions of the PTA that were considered in violation of international human rights law.

However, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is extremely concerned, in particular, by clause 4(1)(a) of the Bill, which, if adopted in its current formulation, would introduce the death penalty for “the terrorism offence of murder”. Sri Lanka has been a de facto abolitionist country for decades, given that a moratorium on executions has been in place in Sri Lanka since 1976. The ICJ is opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances, as a violation of the right to life, and as the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

“Purported threats to national security, whether or not arising in connection with acts of ‘terrorism’, should not be used as a justification for the death penalty”, said Livio Zilli, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser.

The Bill does feature certain improvements on the PTA, such as:

— the removal of a provision pursuant to which a detainee’s confession to a police officer without the presence of the detained person’s lawyer is admissible;

— the requirement for the arresting officer to issue a document notifying the arrest to the next of kin of the accused immediately or at least within 24 hours;

— employing women police officers to arrest/question and search women;

— guaranteed access to translation in a language of the accused’s choice of information relating to the arrest; and

— an obligation to bring the detainee before a magistrate every 14 days when the person is detained without a Detention Order (DO).

However, the ICJ considers that the Bill’s other problematic aspects clearly outweigh the positives. In addition to the above-mentioned concern about the introduction of the death penalty, of particular concern is the overbroad and vague definition in clause 3 of “acts of terrorism” that can be interpreted in a manner that stifles dissent and to crush peaceful protests. Clause 16 further identifies disobeying any direction issued under the Act as a “terrorist offence”. This creates a fresh category of offences likely to be misused by the present government and future administrations against any kind of opposition.

“If enacted as currently formulated, these vague and overbroad offences, similar to and building up on those contained in the PTA, are open to abuse and, as such, they violate Sri Lanka’s international legal obligations and the country’s own constitutional guarantees under Article 13,” said Livio Zilli.

A key precondition to a fair trial under international law is that criminal offences must be prescribed by law and conform to the principle of legality. The principle of legality requires that crimes be classified and described in precise and unambiguous language that narrowly defines the punishable offence with a clear definition of the criminalised conduct, establishing its elements and the factors that distinguish it from conduct that is not criminally proscribed. Criminal law must not proscribe any act or omission in terms that are vague, imprecise, arbitrary or overly broad. Vague laws undermine the rule of law because they leave the door open to selective and arbitrary interpretation, law enforcement and prosecution.

Moreover, if enacted in its current form, the bill would provide limited judicial oversight while granting law enforcement officials additional powers than those they currently enjoy under the PTA. For example, under clause 28 (2)(a) the Magistrate may not review a detention order made by any Deputy inspector general of police (DIG) in the country. Pursuant to clause 28 (b) (iii) as currently formulated, when a detention order has not been issued or placed before the Magistrate, a Magistrate could discharge an accused only if the Officer-in-Charge of the police station requested it and the Magistrate agreed to it. Such provision infringes the separation of powers by arrogating to the police a power that is properly that of the judiciary — in this instance by making the decision of the Magistrate to discharge the accused dependent upon the Officer-in-Charge requesting the accused’s discharge in the first place.

The maximum period of detention under a detention order is 12 months (clause 37) with the police having to file a confidential report that includes the allegation against the accused, the investigation’s findings and the reasons for further detention, with a Magistrate after the first three months (clause 36). The Magistrates cannot review a detention order ordered by a DIG. In the absence of a detention order, the accused is to be brought before a Magistrate every 14 days (clause 38).

While the Bill allows for Magistrates to visit places of detention and for the accused to have access to lawyers, Sri Lanka’s experience under the PTA in the last 44 years has shown that such safeguards do not offer much protection since Magistrates often do not have the time to visit places of detention, such as prisons, due to their workload. Similarly, even if detainees are granted access to lawyers, it has rarely ever been in private.

If adopted as currently formulated, the Bill would establish two bodies, namely the Board of Review chaired by the Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, and an Independent Review Panel to be appointed by the President, purportedly to ensure oversight. However, such bodies would lack the required independence necessary to carry out any effective oversight of the enforcement of the law. Rather, it would seem that, instead of acting as necessary checks on police abuses, both bodies would likely be helpful in concealing any irregularities that may characterise the legislation’s enforcement.

The Bill also empowers the President to proscribe organizations on the recommendation of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) or of the government if there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that the concerned organisation has engaged in an act amounting to an offence under the proposed law or in “an unlawful manner prejudicial to the national security of Sri Lanka” (clause 82).

The President may also declare any place: a “prohibited place,” if so requested by the IGP or the commanders of the armed forces or the Director General of the Coast Guard (clause 85). There is no time limit set for the period of prohibition and any place can potentially be declared a “prohibited place”. This easily allows for repression of any dissent since the police need not have to go before the Magistrate to obtain time limited restraining orders against protests as is the current practice, but instead, immediately get the site of protest declared a prohibited place. Such acts violate the right to be free from arbitrary arrest as per Article 13 of the Constitution, as well as the freedoms of speech and expression, of peaceful assembly and of association all protected under Article 14 of the Sri Lankan Constitution.

Further, the President may also issue regulations to implement “rehabilitation programmes” for persons for whom the Attorney-General has recommended a deferment or suspension of criminal action (clause 100). This is especially concerning since, in the past, accused persons have been coerced into accepting “rehabilitation”, particularly in cases where the State has had little or no evidence to put them on trial.

The ICJ has consistently called for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which has been used to arbitrarily detain suspects for months and often years without charge or trial, facilitating torture and other abuse. United Nations human rights bodies, including most recently the Human Rights Committee, have consistently called on Sri Lanka to enforce a moratorium on the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act pending repeal and to repeal the Act. In this connection, the ICJ renews its call on Sri Lanka to repeal the PTA and immediately halt attempts to replace it with an even worse piece of legislation, as it is the case with respect to the current draft of “the Anti-Terrorism Bill”.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

State Banquet Hosted by the President for the Maldivian President and Delegation

Published

on

By

A special state banquet hosted by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake in honour of Maldivian President Dr Mohamed Muizzu, who is on a state visit to Sri Lanka at the invitation of the Sri Lankan President, was held on Monday (04) at the President’s House in Colombo Fort.

Upon arrival  President Dr Mohamed Muizzu and First Lady Sajidha Mohamed were warmly received by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.

Addressing the gathering, President Dissanayake stated that the long-standing and steadily growing close relationship between Sri Lanka and the Maldives has been further strengthened by the visit of President Muizzu and First Lady Sajidha Mohamed.

He also noted that if the unique appeal of both nations could be jointly promoted, it would bring significant benefits to the people of both countries, particularly in the tourism sector.

The President further emphasised that the strong ties between the people of Sri Lanka and the Maldives, along with their cultural connections, date back centuries. He added that similarities between the two languages reflect this bond, and that the two nations will continue to remain close friends engaged in constant interaction.

President Dissanayake remarked that Sri Lanka considers it an honour to have hosted the signing of the Maldives’ Declaration of Independence in 1965, describing it as a symbol of unity, cooperation and goodwill between the two countries. He added that this is why Maldivians regard Sri Lanka as their second home.

He also stated that the Maldives is regarded as a reliable and valuable partner in efforts towards Sri Lanka’s social and economic development, as well as regional peace and prosperity, highlighting the importance of joint engagement on global issues.

Pointing out that the two countries, as neighbours in the Indian Ocean, share deeply interconnected realities, the President said that challenges such as rising sea levels, climate change and global economic crises affect both nations. He stressed that these can only be addressed through unity and collective purpose, and expressed appreciation for the Maldives’ support during times of difficulty in Sri Lanka.

He further noted that the discussions held between the two leaders would open new avenues for strengthening cooperation between the peoples of both countries. Inviting President Muizzu to work together in safeguarding enduring values such as tolerance, compassion and sustainability, he emphasised the importance of unity in building a brighter future.

Extending his best wishes to President Muizzu and the Maldivian delegation, President Dissanayake expressed confidence that the visit would contribute to the continued progress and prosperity of both nations.

In his address, President Mohamed Muizzu stated that it was a great pleasure to visit Sri Lanka, a long-standing partner in Maldivian history. He described the occasion as not merely a diplomatic engagement, but a celebration of a friendship as deep and gentle as the ocean that connects the two island nations.

He noted that for centuries, the waves between the two shores have carried more than trade and travellers, they have conveyed trust, affection and a shared rhythm of coexistence without rivalry, built on cooperation.

President Muizzu described these enduring human bonds as a golden thread uniting the two nations, characterised by humility, sincerity and permanence.

He emphasised that the friendship between the two countries is founded on mutual respect and has successfully withstood the tests of time. He recalled that Sri Lanka has always extended a steadfast hand of friendship to the Maldives, and expressed the gratitude of the Maldivian people for Sri Lanka’s support in shaping and nurturing the nation’s development.

He further stated that the ocean does not divide Sri Lanka and the Maldives, but unites them, adding that their unity is their greatest strength in ensuring that the Indian Ocean remains a region of peace, stability and opportunity for all.

Addressing climate change as a pressing global challenge, President Muizzu called for joint advocacy for climate justice and for the rights of small nations to survive and thrive. He stressed the importance of collaboration in innovation, resilience and global dialogue, noting that the true meaning of diplomacy lies in the people of both nations.

He also acknowledged Sri Lanka’s achievements in literacy, healthcare and human development as a long-standing inspiration to the Maldives. Looking ahead, he expressed a desire to deepen ties through opportunities in education, training and technology that empower younger generations.

He highlighted that every student nurtured, every life healed and every mind inspired contributes to a more peaceful and prosperous region.

President Muizzu remarked that Maldives–Sri Lanka friendship is not only recorded in official statements, but lives on in the smiles of children growing up familiar with each other’s flags, languages and cuisines. He noted that such bonds are reflected in the warmth exchanged between citizens and the quiet pride shared in each other’s success, adding that these connections cannot be artificially created, they must be experienced and cherished.

Concluding his speech, he stated that although the horizon may be vast, it always unites the sea and the sky, just as the Maldives–Sri Lanka friendship, though far-reaching, is always grounded in shared purpose and mutual respect.

He invited both nations to move forward together with gratitude for the past, confidence in the present and hope for a shared future, expressing his wish that the close friendship and cooperation between the Maldives and Sri Lanka will continue to grow stronger.

During the event, President Muizzu also signed the official commemorative book for visiting heads of state.

Several Sri Lankan dignitaries, including Prime Minister Dr Harini Amarasuriya, Deputy Speaker Rizvie Salih, and other ministers and officials, were present. Members of the Maldivian delegation, including senior ministers and diplomatic representatives, also attended the occasion.

(President’s Media Division)

Continue Reading

News

India pushes for direct link between Rameswaram and Talaimannar, FTA upgrade

Published

on

Jha

India wants to upgrade the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement, signed in 2000 during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s presidency.

Declaring that more than 65% of Sri Lankan exports use FTA benefits whereas only 5% of Indian exports use the same, Indian High Commissioner in Colombo, Santosh Jha, emphasised the urgent need to transform the FTA into a modern framework that delivers the full potential of the bilateral economic partnership.

Jha was addressing the Global Innovation & Leadership Summit “Sri Lanka & India Ties: A Civilisational Bond,” organised by Z Media & WION, in Colombo, recently.

Jha said: “We have spent too long talking about it (FTA); sometimes renaming it; but not actually moving with purpose and required political will to forge a new framework. I say this not to assign blame — but to note that every year of delay is a year of opportunity lost. Think of it, in the last six years, India has signed nine FTAs, covering trade with 38 countries.”

Jha dealt with the situation developing in West Asia where the unprovoked US-Israeli war against Iran has caused tremendous hardships all over the world.

“We are living through an extraordinary period of global turbulence. Supply chains, markets, and everything else available, as a leverage, are being weaponised, as never before. Geopolitical competition is reshaping trade, alliances and partnerships. Trust in global order is eroding; Utility of global institutions are in question. Wars and conflicts are proliferating; even if these wars are regional, nobody seems immune from its impact. Economic uncertainty in some form or another has become almost a permanent condition. And we are all struggling in different degrees to adapt, as nations.

In these circumstances, relationships built on shallow transactional foundations are the first to crack. They are the ones where a change of government, a shift in commodity prices, or a geopolitical tremor is enough to undo years of effort.”

Commenting on Indo-Lanka relations, Jha said: “Civilisational bonds are different. They are not dependent on who happens to be in office in any given year. They are not contingent on a favourable deal or a transaction. They are sustained by something far deeper and more durable: a shared sense of who we are and where we come from, and what we seek to build for ourselves.

When the world is uncertain, you turn to those you trust. And trust, real trust, is built over centuries, not decades. India and Sri Lanka have that in plenty. But we must not take it for granted. In fact, we should nurture it, build on it and use it to our mutual advantage.”

Jha underscored the need to connect India with Sri Lanka. Jha said: “Let me be direct. The distance between Colombo and Chennai by sea is roughly 300 kilometres. But the distance between Rameswaram and Talaimannar — the closest points of our two countries — is about 30 kilometres. Thirty kilometres. And yet, there is no direct road. No railway. No ferry service that runs at scale. No energy grid connection. No pipeline. It is, frankly, an anomaly. It is as if two neighbouring rooms are connected only through a corridor outside, even when there is a door that can be built between the two rooms, right in the shared wall of the two rooms. We need to open that door.”

Land connectivity via a bridge or tunnel across the Palk Strait has been discussed for decades. There are enough examples of such corridors across the world. The engineering is well understood. The economics are compelling. The benefits, wherever such bridges have been built, are unmistakable. But we continue to waver. But let me say clearly: the time for wavering is over. A fixed link between India and Sri Lanka would transform the economic geography of this entire region. It would make Sri Lanka a hub, it aspires to become, in a way that no port expansion or airport upgrade can achieve on its own.

Energy connectivity is equally transformative. India has made massive strides in renewable energy across solar, wind, nuclear and green hydrogen. Sri Lanka has its own targets. A submarine electricity interconnection between the two countries would give Sri Lanka access to affordable and clean power. It will also create a market for Sri Lanka’s energy exports and help realise its vast potential. In a power-hungry age of data centres, India’s demand for renewable energy will only increase; and Sri Lanka needs to fully understand that opportunity to forge ahead.

Beyond electricity, serious conversations must also take place about long-term energy supply arrangements, including the petroleum pipeline and the development of tank farms in a meaningful, sustainable way. It can provide Sri Lanka with price stability and energy security. Something that we know today after the West Asia crisis is at premium. These are not fantasies. They are projects that have been studied, scoped, and in some cases are ready for decision. India already has implemented similar projects with its other neighbours – Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh – who are benefitting not just by exporting their surplus power to Indian markets but also by enjoying a level of energy security, which would not have been possible otherwise in the current difficult global situation.

Continue Reading

News

Treasury theft won’t be treated by creditors as a default: Govt.

Published

on

Anil Jayantha / Sajith

Sri Lanka’s creditors were unlikely to classify the recent USD 2.5 million Treasury fund heist as a technical debt default, Deputy Minister of Finance Anil Jayantha Fernando told Parliament yesterday (05), citing assessments by the Government’s financial and legal advisors engaged in the debt restructuring process.

Responding to queries raised by Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, Fernando said the incident is expected to be treated as a cybercrime matter rather than a failure or refusal by the State to honour its debt obligations.

“Although the funds remitted by Sri Lanka were not received by the Australian creditor, this does not indicate an inability or unwillingness on the part of the Government to repay,” he said, adding that given the nature of the incident and Sri Lanka’s relations with Australia, advisors believe neither Australia nor Paris Club members are likely to deem it a debt default.

Fernando said debt restructuring advisors had been consulted on whether the episode could amount to a technical default, while investigations are continuing to establish the nature of the alleged fraud.

Outlining the sequence of events, he said the Sri Lanka Computer Emergency Readiness Team was notified on January 9, 2026, with the Criminal Investigation Department also informed the same day. He said Australia Export Finance later notified Sri Lankan authorities on March 23 that the funds had not been received. A complaint was subsequently lodged with the CID by the Director General of the External Resources Department on March 24, while the Financial Intelligence Unit was informed on April 1.

Rejecting allegations that the Government had withheld information from Parliament, Fernando said there had been no attempt to suppress facts, noting that disclosure had been delayed pending further clarity from ongoing investigations, particularly regarding possible official involvement and internal control lapses.

He assured that all findings would be presented to Parliament in due course.

Premadasa questioned the delay in informing the House, given the timeline of events.

Fernando also cautioned against unverified speculation surrounding the death of a Ministry official linked to the incident, urging both the Opposition and the media to refrain from disseminating unsubstantiated claims.

Responding to claims raised by Premadasa that the deceased official was the first to detect and report the fund diversion, Fernando declined to confirm or deny the assertion, warning that such speculation could mislead the public and aggravate the situation.

He said investigations by the CID, in collaboration with the Finance Ministry’s External Resources Department and the Public Debt Management Office, are ongoing, adding that the continued service of the Ministry Secretary would not impede impartial inquiries.

“I am not prepared to present unverified information until investigations are concluded,” he added.

By Saman Indrajith

Continue Reading

Trending