News

ATA is a continuation of PTA in more repressive form – Prof. Uyangoda

Published

4 years ago

2023/04/7

By Rathindra Kuruwita

The proposed Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) is a direct response to the citizens’ protest movement of 2022 and the continuation of these protests this year, Professor Jayadeva Uyangoda, a political scientist, said during an online seminar on the ATA, organised by the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) recently.

“The ATA is a continuation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in a much repressive form. The terrorism it seeks to suppress is citizen’s political activism. The proposed law frames terrorism as a broad, arbitrary and an alarmingly undemocratic manner,” he said.Prof. Uyangoda said that people had used the term, ‘draconian’, to describe the PTA, however the new ATA went beyond the PTA in its repressive capacity.

“The present government and the President want to address two dimensions. One is that the authority and legitimacy of the current ruling class is in a severe crisis. Most of the people reject the political order run by the current politicians as a whole. This is a severe form of political crisis. The second aspect is that the executive presidential system introduced in 1978 has also faced a severe crisis. The crisis was so deep that unarmed protestors could dislodge a very powerful president. That crisis of executive political order continues,” he said.

What Wickremesinghe is trying to do is to resolve the twin crisis of the existing political order by using the state and political power he has access to. These twin crises occurred because politically conscious citizens not only reject, for the first time, the legitimacy of the political class but also, they are demanding a radical transformation of political culture and class, he said.

“This kind of transformative social demands are not acceptable for the ruling elites. So, what could they do? One thing they could do is introduce new legislation that would transform Sri Lanka into a police state under the supervision of the current political leadership. The political implications of the ATA are far reaching than the PTA or the emergency regulations that we have been having since the 1970s. ATA is trying to achieve what the PTA or the emergency regulations could not achieve, i.e. an effective police state. Sri Lanka is entering a state of heightened de-democratisation,” he said.

Sri Lanka has been in a path of rapid de-democratisation since the 1970s with sporadic attempts to re-democratise it by sections of the people and reformist politicians. However, last year Sri Lanka entered a new phase of re-democratisation with the protest movement.

“What the government has been trying to do is constantly terrorize the politically conscious and active groups of citizens,” he said.

The ATA criminalises the citizen’s political activism and in turn makes the citizen’s political activism an anti-state political activism, Uyangoda said.

“The punishment for activism is 20 years in jail. One of the lessons that the political class has learnt from the protests last year is that they should not allow Sri Lankans to become active, assertive citizens. They don’t only want passive citizens but also subservient citizens. They want to make politically active citizens to be criminals. That is the police state dimension of this,” he said.

He added the proposed ATA is also an attempt by the government to prepare for the social unrest that is likely to arise in the country due to its disastrous austerity measures.

Uyangoda suggests that the burden of economic revival is being placed solely on the poor and middle class, which has created an impending social crisis. He views the proposed ATA as a continuation of the current Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in a much more oppressive form that seeks to counter citizens’ political activism. He warned that the ruling class’s undemocratic response to quash protests and demonstrations would further oppress the people and turn them into terrorists.

Uyangoda argued that the ruling class was aware that their economic programme was likely to lead to daily protests and demonstrations on the country’s roads, and they were trying to prevent such events by strengthening their capabilities and passing oppressive laws. He urged the government to reconsider their approach, warning that such laws will only exacerbate the social crisis and lead to further unrest.

“The middle class has become somewhat politically active. They are the ones opposing the new tax reforms the most. So, the proletariat and the middle classes have both become politicised. One of the ways that capitalism can respond to this is by forcefully de-politicising the people. To achieve this the government has to further strengthen the repressive laws and mechanisms it has. The new enemies of the ruling class are political citizens, the trade unions, the farmers, etc. The government wants to make any form of opposition and act of terrorism,” he said.

Prof. Shyama Banneheka, head of FUTA said that the proposed ATA goes beyond anti-terrorism laws found in most countries. However, it is quite similar to laws passed by governments that attempt to crush dissent and suppress perceived threats by aggrieved people who are affected by disastrous government policies.

Meanwhile, Ermiza Tegal, lawyer and a human rights activist, said that the ATA allows the executive to take over the power of the judiciary. The ATA has a clause empowering the President to make regulations and directions.

“Right now emergency law is the only law that the President can make and that is in an emergency situation. This ATA allows the president to make regulations and directions not only during a time of emergency,” she said.

All News Advertisement

News

Delegation from Korean Volunteer Association meet Secretary to the President

Published

21 mins ago

2026/10/13

Priyan

A special delegation led by Deokuju Jung, President of the Korean Volunteer Association for Distinguished Service to the State, met Secretary to the President Dr Nandika Sanath Kumanayake at the Presidential Secretariat on Monday (12) afternoon .

The discussions focused extensively on welfare programmes the association expects to implement in Sri Lanka and the support it hopes to obtain from the Government of Sri Lanka for these initiatives.

Attention was also given to the proposed implementation of a comprehensive programme in collaboration with the Government to support children with special needs in Sri Lanka.

The meeting was also attended by Ven. Wanawasi Rahula Thero, Founder of Namal Uyana and Chief Incumbent of the Namal Uyana Forest Monastery, Senior Additional Secretary to the President Roshan Gamage and Korean Volunteer Association representatives Jungsun Choi, Junyoon Lim, Chaeeun Kim and Wonwook Choi.

[President’s Media Division]

News

HRCSL issues recommendation on seizure of four books by B. Piratheepan by Sri Lanka Customs

Published

2 hours ago

2026/10/13

Priyan

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) issued its recommendation in Case No: HRC/KIL/031/26 concerning the decision of the Director General, Sri Lanka Customs to seize
four books authored by B Piratheepan.

The books ‘Ippothum Inge Irandu Thesangalthaan’, ‘Elluttal Nan Yuttam Ceykiren’, ‘Bayangaravaathi’, and ‘Cyanide’ are Tamil language books printed in Chennai, India, and were imported to Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Customs seized the books on 27 March 2026 and had informed the Complainant that they would only be released upon obtaining approval from the Ministry of Defence.

Following an opinion issued by the Arts Council of Sri Lanka and the State Literary Sub-Panel, two of the books, ‘Bayangaravaathi’ and ‘Cyanide’ were released on the basis that the experts on the Council had concluded that these books were works of fiction. Copies of the remaining two books ‘Ippothum Inge Irandu Thesangalthaan’ (75 copies) and ‘Elluttal Nan Yuttam Ceykiren’ (147 copies) were not released and remained under detention.

At the conclusion of its inquiry, the Commission noted that none of the Respondents wished to take direct responsibility for the continued seizure of the remaining two books. It observed that
the handling of the matter was marked by indecision and opacity at every stage.

Sri Lanka Customs purported to act under section 135, read with section 12 and Schedule B of the Customs Ordinance, which authorises it to prohibit ‘Any newspaper, pamphlet, leaflet, book or picture containing matter calculated to lead to acts made punishable under section 120 of the Penal Code’.

Relying on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohamed Razik Mohamed Ramzy v. Officer-in-Charge, Criminal Investigation Department & Others SC (F.R) No. 135/2020, the Commission found that intent remains an indispensable element of section 120 of the Penal Code and that this mental element is reinforced in Schedule B to the Customs Ordinance by the inclusion of the term ‘calculated’.

The Commission accordingly observed that both causation and intent, which are necessary features of individual culpability, must be established for a person to face legal consequences in terms of section 120 of the Penal Code.

The Commission concluded that the 1st Respondent must be of the reasonable opinion that these elements of individual culpability, causation and intent, are present in a given case to justify the permanent seizure of any publication. However, the 1st Respondent had not demonstrated that he had reached such an opinion.

The Commission observed that, while the impugned content in the Complainant’s two books (e.g. allegations that the Sri Lankan military had attacked civilians, and allegations that the
Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna supported violence) may be classified as ‘shocking’, even ‘offensive’ to some, or ‘disturbing’, there is no evidence to suggest that the impugned passages
were calculated to excite disaffection against the state, promote feelings of ill-will between communities or bring about any other harmful outcome listed in section 120 of the Penal Code.

The Commission reiterated that section 120 of the Penal Code concerns expressions that are directly inciteful and have the capacity to influence large portions of the population to act in a
harmful manner. It found that the impugned passages in the two books merely contain sentences that make allegations, which may prompt reflection among some readers, and which may be dismissed by other readers. They, in the opinion of the Commission, lack the potency expected of content that was likely to ‘excite disaffection’ or ‘promote ill-will’. It found that the continued seizure of the two books, which acted as a form of prior censorship of its contents, is both unnecessary and disproportionate in terms of meeting the legislative aims found in section 120.

The Commission also noted that the contents of these two books were claimed to already be in the public domain and had previously featured in Tamil language newspapers.

Therefore, the Respondents had not demonstrated how such content had thus far contributed to disaffection or promoted feelings of ill-will between communities. In this context, the Commission was unconvinced that the limitation in question is reasonable and concluded that the 1st Respondent’s continued seizure of the two books ‘Ippothum Inge Irandu Thesangalthaan’ and ‘Elluttal Nan Yuttam Ceykiren’ authored by the Complainant violated his right to the freedom of expression including publication guaranteed by article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The Commission separately found that the sequence of events, and the explanations provided by the Respondents, indicated that the language of the Complainant’s books, i.e., the Tamil
language, was pivotal to their seizure. It observed that several state institutions that encountered these books treated them with prejudice and suspicion, which would not have been afforded to books of another language. Given that the Complainant’s two books have remained in detention for a prolonged period, i.e. more than six months, with no formal procedure, the Commission found a violation of article 12(1) of the Constitution. It also found that the actions of the 1st
Respondent were discriminatory on the basis of language, and violated his right to non-discrimination on the grounds of language guaranteed by article 12(2) of the Constitution.

Commenting on the application of article 14(1)(f) of the Constitution, the Commission found that Tamil-speaking people are a linguistic minority in Sri Lanka who enjoy the protection of both article 14(1)(f). The Commission recalled that the marginalization of Tamil-speakers throughout Sri Lanka’s post-independence period has been one of the root causes of the country’s ethnic conflict. Therefore, state functionaries should be particularly sensitive to the implications of treating Tamil language publications with prejudice. The Commission recognized that the essence of the freedom to promote one’s own culture and to use one’s own language is that citizens should have autonomy over the cultural and literary content they wish to produce or consume. The state should not interfere with this freedom except in very limited circumstances governed by article 15 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, it found that the 1st Respondent, through the continued seizure of the Complainant’s two books ‘Ippothum Inge Irandu Thesangalthaan’ and ‘Elluttal Nan Yuttam Ceykiren’, violated his fundamental right to the freedom to enjoy and promote his own culture and to use his own language.

In the circumstances, the Commission recommended that the 1st Respondent forthwith release from detention all copies of the two books titled ‘Ippothum Inge Irandu Thesangalthaan’ and ‘Elluttal Nan Yuttam Ceykiren’ authored by the Complainant.

News

Presidential pardons: Govt. studying Justice Thurairaja’s recommendations – Minister

Published

8 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

Thurairaja / Harshana

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara said yesterday that the Cabinet was studying a set of recommendations made by a Committee, led by retired Supreme Court judge Sithambarampillai Thurairaja, PC, regarding a systematic, fair and transparent mechanism for granting presidential pardons to convicted prison inmates.

Attorney-at-law Nanayakkara said so when The Island raised the issue in the wake of the ongoing controversy over prison authorities compelling General Secretary of the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) Ven. Galadodaaththe Gnanasara to wear civilian attire when produced in court.

The Minister declined to elaborate but said the Cabinet of Ministers was yet to reach consensus on the recommendations. The NPP government, on 25 June 2025, appointed Thurairaja’s committee to study the provisions of the Article 34(1) of the Constitution, along with other statutory acts and judicial rulings.

Justice Thurairaja handed over his report to Justice and National Integration Ministry Secretary Ayesha Jinasena, PC.

The other members of the Committee were Deputy Minister of Mass Media Dr. Kaushalya Ariyarathne, Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Justice and National Integration Piyumanthi Peiris, Additional Solicitor General Nerin Pulle, Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police (SDIG) Legal Asanga Karawita, Chairperson of the Bureau of Rehabilitation Professor Wasantha Subasinghe, Specialist Dr. Chiththahari Abayanayake, former Acting Commissioner of Prisons Nishan Dhanasinghe, Acting Commissioner General of Prisons Prasad Hemantha Kumara, Senior Assistant Secretary (Legal) to the Ministry of Justice and National Integration Roshani Hettige, and Senior Assistant Secretary to the Ministry of Justice and National Integration Chandima Welikala.

The government called for guidelines regarding presidential pardon over a year before the Supreme Court rescinded, in September this year, the presidential pardon granted by Maithripala Sirisena to Ven Gnanasara serving a six-term of rigorous imprisonment for contempt of court. That pardon was granted in May 2019, the third controversial release by Sirisena during his presidency.

President Sirisena pardoned an ex-LTTE terrorist and also the Royal Park murderer Don Shramantha Jude Anthony Jayamaha, in 2016 and 2019, respectively. The Supreme Court, in June 2024, annulled the pardon granted to Jayamaha and ordered his arrest though he still remains free having fled overseas no sooner he was granted the pardon.