Connect with us

News

Lanka’s draft ‘Rehabilitation Law’ would spur abuse – HRW

Published

on

The Sri Lankan government should withdraw a draft law that would give the authorities broad powers to detain people in military-run “rehabilitation” centers, placing them at great risk of abuse, Human Rights Watch said yesterday (17).

The Bureau of Rehabilitation Bill, submitted to parliament on September 23, 2022, would allow the compulsory detention in centers of “drug dependant persons, ex-combatants, members of violent extremist groups and any other group of persons.”

The Bureau of Rehabilitation Bill would establish a new administrative structure controlled by the Defense Ministry to operate “rehabilitation” centers staffed by military personnel. The proposed law, which human rights advocates have already challenged in the Supreme Court, does not describe the basis for being sent for “rehabilitation,” but other recent government policies provide vague and arbitrary powers to forcibly “rehabilitate” people who have not been convicted of any crime.

“The Sri Lankan government’s proposed ‘rehabilitation’ efforts appear to be nothing more than a new form of abusive detention without charge,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Rehabilitation Bill would open the door widely to more torture, mistreatment, and endless detention.”

The Sri Lankan government has previously used coercive “rehabilitation” centers to enable arbitrary detention and torture. Following the civil war, which ended in 2009, thousands of people whom the government identified as members of the defeated separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam were detained in military-run “rehabilitation” centers, where some were allegedly tortured and subjected to other abuses, including sexual violence. The current bill seeks once again to “rehabilitate” “ex-combatants” 13 years after the war ended.

The Rehabilitation Bill is the latest measure in a long history of laws, such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), that authorize arbitrary detention and torture in Sri Lanka. The law could be used to target minority communities or anti-government protesters whom President Ranil Wickremesinghe has labeled “extremists.”

Under the Rehabilitation Bill, which would allow prolonged detention without judicial oversight, government officials would be protected from criminal liability for their actions if they act “in good faith.” The bill also empowers officials to use undefined “minimum force” to “compel obedience” from detainees. Another provision provides that an official who “without reasonable cause” strikes, wounds, ill-treats, or willfully neglects anyone under rehabilitation can be punished by up to 18 months in prison, suggesting that there might be a “reasonable cause” to harm detainees. International law absolutely prohibits torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

A separate bill to amend Sri Lanka’s Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, which was presented to parliament on September 9, provides for the compulsory rehabilitation of alleged drug users. The legislation would worsen already abusive laws and practices under Sri Lanka’s “war on drugs,” which Sri Lankan military officers have repeatedly compared to the “war on terror.”

Sri Lanka already has a system of forced “rehabilitation” for alleged drug users, which is run by the armed forces at two sites previously used to “rehabilitate” former combatants. There have been allegations of forced labor and ill-treatment, including the collective punishment of inmates, who are denied access to medically appropriate treatment for drug dependency while undergoing coercive “de-addiction.” The death of an inmate at the Kandakadu rehabilitation center in June led to the arrest of four army and air force sergeants acting as “therapists.”

International standards for the treatment of addiction maintain that treatment should always be voluntary and addiction regarded primarily as a health condition. The abstinence-based “rehabilitation” programs operated by the military are not based on scientific evidence and provide no harm reduction services.

In 2017, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention expressed concern at the involvement of the Sri Lankan military in drug treatment and at the lack of medical care, as well as irregularities in the judicial process. The detention of alleged drug users for coercive “rehabilitation” is incompatible with medically appropriate drug dependency treatment and contravenes international law, Human Rights Watch said.

The proposed amendment to the drug law contains provisions to weaken evidentiary standards and deny bail to suspects in some criminal cases related to the possession of drugs. Sri Lanka continues to impose the death penalty for some drug offenses, contrary to international law standards and despite a national moratorium on executions since 1976.

The Rehabilitation Bureau Bill and the proposed amendment to anti-narcotics legislation are only the latest measures in President Wickremesinghe’s assault on fundamental rights, Human Rights Watch said. An attempt to use the Official Secrets Act to restrict public gatherings in the capital, Colombo, was withdrawn earlier in October amid widespread objections that the action was unlawful.

On October 6, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution expressing concern at the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and mandating enhanced UN monitoring, as well as renewing a mandate for the UN to collect and analyze evidence of past human rights violations for use in future prosecutions.

“President Wickremesinghe is pursuing abusive and repressive policies that make it difficult for Sri Lanka’s international partners to wholeheartedly back desperately needed economic measures,” Ganguly said. “Foreign governments should make clear that they will support the urgent needs of the Sri Lankan people, but they will also take action through targeted sanctions and other measures against those committing serious human rights violations.”



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Latest News

Landslide Early Warnings issued to the Districts of Kandy and Nuwara Eliya

Published

on

By

The Landslide Early Warning Center of the National Building Research Organisation [NBRO] has issued landslide early warnings to the districts of Kandy and Nuwara Eliya valid  from 06:00 hrs on 13.02.2026 to 06:00 hrs on 14.02.2026

Accordingly,
Level II [AMBER] landslide early warnings have been issued to the Divisional Secretaries Divisions and surrounding areas of Walapane and Nildandahinna in the Nuwara Eliya district.

Level I [YELLOW] landslide early warnings have been issued to the Divisional Secretaries Divisions and surrounding areas of Pathahewheta in the Kandy district.

Continue Reading

Latest News

Former Minister Professor Tissa Vitharana has passed away at the age of 91

Published

on

By

Former Minister Professor Tissa Vitharana has passed away at the age of 91, according to family sources

 

Continue Reading

News

GL: Proposed anti-terror laws will sound death knell for democracy

Published

on

Prof. Peiris

‘Media freedom will be in jeopardy’

Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs, National Integration and Foreign Affairs Prof. G. L. Peiris has warned that the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA) will deal a severe blow to civil liberties and democratic rights, particularly media freedom and the overall freedom of expression.

Addressing a press conference organised by the joint opposition alliance “Maha Jana Handa” (Voice of the People) in Colombo, Prof. Peiris said the proposed legislation at issue had been designed “not to protect people from terrorism but to protect the State.”

Prof. Peiris said that the proposed law would sound the death knell for the rights long enjoyed by citizens, with journalists and media institutions likely to be among those worst affected.

Prof. Peiris took exception to what he described as the generous use of the concept of “recklessness” in the draft, particularly in relation to the publication of statements and dissemination of material. He argued that recklessness was recognised in criminal jurisprudence as a state of mind distinct from intention and its scope was traditionally limited.

“In this draft, it becomes yet another lever for the expansion of liability well beyond the properly designated category of terrorist offences,” Prof. Peiris said, warning that the elasticity of the term could expose individuals to prosecution on tenuous grounds.

Prof. Peiris was particularly critical of a provision enabling a suspect already in judicial custody to be transferred to police custody on the basis of a detention order issued by the Defence Secretary.

According to the proposed laws such a transfer could be justified on the claim that the suspect had committed an offence prior to arrest of which police were previously unaware, he said.

“The desirable direction of movement is from police to judicial custody. Here, the movement is in the opposite direction,” Prof. Peiris said, cautioning that although the authority of a High Court Judge was envisaged, the pressures of an asserted security situation could render judicial oversight ineffective in practice.

Describing the draft as “a travesty rather than a palliative,” Prof. Peiris said the government had reneged on assurances that reform would address longstanding concerns about existing counter-terrorism legislation. Instead of removing objectionable features, he argued, the new bill introduced additional provisions not found in the current Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).

Among them is a clause empowering the Defence Secretary to designate “prohibited places”. That was a power not contained in the PTA but previously exercised, if at all, under separate legislation such as the Official Secrets Act of 1955. Entry into such designated places, as well as photographing, video recording, sketching or drawing them, would constitute an offence punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to Rs. 3 million. Prof. Peiris said. Such provision would have a “particularly chilling effect” on journalists and media personnel, he noted.

The former minister and law professor also criticised the breadth of offences defined under the draft, noting that it sought to create 13 categories of acts carrying the label of terrorism. This, he said, blurred the critical distinction between ordinary criminal offences and acts of terrorism, which require “clear and unambiguous definition with no scope for elasticity of interpretation.”

He cited as examples offences such as serious damage to public property, robbery, extortion, theft, and interference with electronic or computerised systems—acts which, he argued, were already adequately covered under existing penal laws and did not necessarily amount to terrorism.

Ancillary offences, too, had been framed in sweeping terms, Prof. Peiris said. The draft legislation, dealing with acts ‘associated with terrorism,’ imposed liability on persons “concerned in” the commission of a terrorist offence. “This is a vague phrase and catch-all in nature.” he noted.

Similarly, under the subheading ‘Encouragement of Terrorism,’ with its reference to “indirect encouragement,” could potentially encompass a broad spectrum of protest activity, Prof. Peiris maintained, warning that the provision on “Dissemination of Terrorist Publications” could render liable any person who provides a service enabling others to access such material. “The whole range of mainstream and social media is indisputably in jeopardy,” Prof. Peiris said.

Former Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa and SLFP Chairman Nimal Siripala de Silva also addressed the media at the briefing.

by Saman Indrajith ✍️

Continue Reading

Trending