Connect with us

News

Civil society calls for immediate moratorium on use of PTA

Published

on

Civil society groups and individuals have called for an immediate moratorium on the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
In a statement titled ‘Civil Society Statement on Government Proposals to Reform the Prevention of Terrorism Act’, they said: We reiterate that national security cannot be achieved by creating insecurity for already discriminated against and marginalized communities, and call for the repeal of the PTA. The repeal of the PTA must also be considered in light of the anti-terrorism and public security legal framework that Sri Lanka has in place, and the historical abuse of power by state entities.”

Full text of the statement: In June 2021 the government of Sri Lanka announced it would ‘reform’ the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and appointed a Ministerial Sub-Committee for that purpose. It was reported in the media that Kamal Gunaratne, the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and the head of the Technical Committee that functions under the Ministerial Sub-Committee, submitted the Technical Committee’s recommendations to the Ministerial Sub-Committee in November 2021.
Historically, for decades, the PTA has been weaponized against the Tamil community, and following the Easter attacks against the Muslim community as well. This has resulted in the victimization of members of these communities. It was also used against the Sinhalese during the JVP insurrection and now against dissenters. We reiterate that any process which seeks to tackle issues related to the PTA must address this factor to ensure those adversely affected by the law will receive justice, including reparations.

While the government has not shared its plans for the supposed “reform” of the PTA with the public, we note the Sri Lanka Consensus Collective’s (SLCC) statement of 29 November 2021 sets out proposals for reform the government shared with the said group. In the absence of official communication by the government, we consider the elements contained in the SLCC statement as the changes being deliberated by the government. We note that nearly all so-called changes proposed already exist in law and do not address any of the shortcomings in the PTA that enable grave human rights violations.
We call for repeal of the PTA and in the interim an immediate moratorium on the use of the law. This is in line with the requests of persons and communities adversely affected by the law. We reiterate that any law that purports to deal with terrorism must adhere to international human rights standards. In this regard, we set out below the provisions of the law that result in egregious human rights violations and the minimum standards that have to be followed to ensure the protection of fundamental rights.

The critical factor to take note is that the PTA is a human rights deficient law that does not adhere to basic human rights standards enshrined in international conventions, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the government of Sri Lanka has ratified and hence has an obligation to respect and protect. Nor does it adhere to many provisions in the Constitution of Sri Lanka. In this context the following are key provisions in the PTA that result in grave human rights violations:
The PTA does not contain a definition of terrorism. Instead, the offences stipulated are those found in other laws, such as the Penal Code, to which the PTA makes reference. Hence, the decision as to whether the PTA would apply in a certain instance is a subjective decision that can be shaped by personal prejudice and bias, rather than objective standards. In this regard, the PTA does not adhere to the definition set out by the UN Special Rapporteur on Countering Terrorism while Protecting Human Rights. For instance, post- Easter attacks even persons with books in Arabic and decorative swords were arrested. Similarly, those memorializing the lives lost at the end of the war have been arrested.

The lack of basic due process safeguards in the PTA enables arbitrary arrest and detention, which continue to date. This is exacerbated by the lengthy periods of administrative detention. For example, for decades we have witnessed persons who had any connection to a person accused of an offence in the normal course of their employment or personal life being arrested, without investigations being conducted, and detained for months.
We reiterate that arrests should be made based only on evidence following investigation or reasonable suspicion.
The detention period should be that stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure and any extension of detention should be made by a judge, who should be satisfied of the reasons for continued detention and exercise discretion as to whether or not to extend detention.

There is documented evidence, including Supreme Court decisions and the Human Rights Commission’s (HRCSL) reports, which illustrate that the admissibility of confessions made to an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) or above as evidence, has resulted in persons being tortured to extract confessions. This has normalized and entrenched the use of torture. Even if the confession is ruled inadmissible during trial, the existence of the provision creates room for persons to be subject to torture. This not only violates basic due process and fair trial rights of a person accused of an offence, but also calls into question the competence of the criminal justice system that has to rely on confessions to prosecute persons. Such a provision, which is a deviation from the norm, has no place in law. Instead, current provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Ordinance should be followed with regard to the admissibility of confessions.

Section 7(3) allows a person to be taken out of judicial custody to any other place for investigation. Section 15A empowers the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, to determine a person’s place of detention even after the person is remanded. This removes a person from the protection of judicial custody and empowers the Secretary to override a judicial order. The incident in September 2021 of the Minister of Prison Reforms and Prisoners Rehabilitation Affairs entering Anuradhapura prison and reportedly threatening persons detained under the PTA with a weapon and verbally abusing them illustrates the insecurity faced by such persons even when in judicial custody. Removing them from judicial custody would only exacerbate their vulnerability. As the Human Rights Commission’s national study of prisons documented, persons remanded under the PTA were subjected to severe torture when taken out of judicial custody or held in other places upon the instructions of the Secretary, Ministry of Defence.

Persons detained under the PTA spend a prolonged period of time in pretrial detention because the Act requires such persons to remain in remand custody until the conclusion of the trial, unless the Attorney General consents to the release on bail. For all arrests, provisions of the Bail Act should apply, and bail should be denied only if any of the exceptional circumstances set out in the Bail Act are met.
The PTA allows the Minister of Defence to issue Restriction Orders for up to 18 months. Restriction Orders can be used to prevent people from engaging in political activities, speaking at events, or advising an organisation. Such orders allow civic rights to be curtailed arbitrarily by the Minister with no due process, transparency or accountability.

The SLCC statement mentions the government stated that for the very first time a detained person would be able to challenge administrative detention in the Supreme Court. We point out that the right to challenge arbitrary detention, including under the PTA, is enshrined in the Constitution of Sri Lanka and is not a new right that any proposed reform could bestow. The challenge many detained persons face in accessing this existing right is the administrative restrictions on access to lawyers and lack of financial resources to retain competent counsel.
Similarly, the HRCSL Act already mandates the Commission to monitor the welfare of persons deprived of liberty and empowers it to access any place of detention unannounced. However, following the 20th Amendment to the Constitution in 2020, the HRCSL is no longer a legally independent body as appointment of the officers of the Commission is at the discretion of the President. This adversely impacts the activities of the Commission as well as public trust in the institution.

The Advisory Board established by Section 13 of the PTA, as we have pointed out in the past, is an inadequate protection mechanism that is not independent as its members are appointed by the President. Further, the Minister of Defence has the power to make rules on how the Board deals with representations made by detained persons. It therefore does not act as a safeguard against executive abuse of power. Any non-judicial mechanism that is established to decide on/recommend the release of persons detained under the PTA must be independent and entities, such as the Attorney-General’s Department, should not be able to veto its decisions.
The proposals shared by the government with SLCC fail to address the fundamental shortcomings of the PTA. Instead, they propose changes that already exist but are often observed in the breach.
We note with deep concern that the functioning of the aforementioned committees was not transparent and the recommendations were formulated without any consultation with members of civil society who have been working on issues related to the PTA or persons affected by the law. We call for greater transparency in the reform process from this point onwards and request the government to inform the public of the process for consultation and the proposed timeline for reform.

We reiterate that national security cannot be achieved by creating insecurity for already discriminated against and marginalized communities, and call for the repeal of the PTA. The repeal of the PTA must also be considered in light of the anti-terrorism and public security legal framework that Sri Lanka has in place, and the historical abuse of power by state entities. These entities should not be bestowed with additional power.
The way forward must give due recognition to the protection of physical liberty. Deprivation of physical liberty by the executive must be used only as last resort and strictly require sufficient basis that is determined on objective factors, judicial supervision of such basis, prompt and free access to legal representation including legal aid, prompt trials or release, and an enforceable right to compensation for arbitrary detention. The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty has acquired customary international law status and constitutes a jus cogens norm which Sri Lanka is duty bound to secure for its citizens.
The balance the government wishes to achieve between personal liberties and national security can only be achieved through addressing the root causes of conflict and violence. Attempts to further curtail civil liberties in the guise of national security will only exacerbate the insecurity of all communities and undermine the rule of law and democracy in Sri Lanka.

Signatories of the statement were: S. Annalaxumy, Bisliya Bhutto, S.C.C. Elankovan, Lawyer and Development Consultant Philip Dissanayake, A.M. Faaiz, Brito Fernando, Nimalka Fernando, Ruki Fernando, Aneesa Firthous, Amarasingham Gajenthiran, T.Gangeswary, K. Ginogini, Ranitha Gnanarajah AAL, B. Gowthaman, S. Hayakirivan, Director, THALAM, V. Inthrani, Noorul Ismiya, Vasuki Jeyshankar, Dr. Sakuntala Kadirgamar, S. Kamalakanthan – Social Activist, Mahaluxmy Kurushanthan, Kandumani Lavakusarasa, Human Rights Activist, Jensila Majeed, Buhary Mohamed, Human Rights Activist, Juwairiya Mohideen, Jaabir Raazi Muhammadh, Chairman, Voices Movement, P. Muthulingam, Thangaraja Prashanthiran, Dorin Rajani, Maithreyi Rajasingham, Executive Director, Viluthu , A.R.A. Ramees, V. Ranjana, Anuratha Rajaretnam, K.S. Ratnvale, Yamini Ravindran, AAL, Kumudini Samuel, Thurainayagam Sanjeevan, Shreen Saroor, Ambika Satkunanathan, Rev Fr S D P Selvan,
S. Selvaranie, Vanie Simon, P. N. Singham, Usha Sivakumar, N. Sumanthi, Vani Sutha, Ermiza Tegal, S. Thileepan – Social Activist, P Vasanthagowrey, Rev Fr Yogeswaran, Adayalam Centre for Policy Research, Alliance for Minorities, Centre for Human Rights and Development, Centre for Justice and Change, Eastern Social Development Foundation, Families of the Disappeared, Forum for Plural Democracy, Law and Society Trust, Mannar Women’s Development Federation, Rural Development Foundation, Tamil Civil Society Forum, Viluthu and Women’s Action Network



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Latest News

MOU signed between STEMedical USA and Sri Lanka Institute of Biotechnology to establish a laboratory with international accreditation facilities

Published

on

By

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed this morning (15) at the Presidential Secretariat between STEMedical of the USA and the Sri Lanka Institute of Biotechnology (SLIBTEC) to establish a laboratory with internationally recognised accreditation.

The MoU for this $15 million investment project, conducted under the guidance of the National Initiative for Research and Development Commercialisation (NIRDC), was signed by Professor Hans Keirstead, founder of the American company STEMedical and on behalf of the Sri Lanka Institute of Biotechnology (SLIBTEC), by its Chairman, Professor Samitha Hettige and Chief Operating Officer, Amali Ranasinghe.

For a long time, there has been a need to enhance the capacity of laboratories with internationally recognised accreditation for testing purposes across many sectors in Sri Lanka, including health, agriculture, cosmetics and Ayurveda, as well as in the import and export fields.

Professor Gomika Udugamasooriya, Senior Presidential Advisor on Science and Technology, who attended the event, said that today is a special day for Sri Lanka and that accreditation is very important for a country. Prof. Udugamasooriya emphasised the significance of a laboratory project with such accreditation facilities in achieving the government’s objective of doubling the country’s export revenue by the year 2030.

This laboratory is expected to function as a main lab, working in conjunction with existing laboratories across the island, to ensure the quality of goods and services in various fields.

Professor Hans Keirstead, founder of STEMedical, stated that he is pleased with the current leadership in Sri Lanka, which he said has a broad vision for the scientific sector and has been able to identify developmental needs such as enhancing laboratory capacity. He also said that this project would bring many benefits to the country, not only clinically but also economically. Mr Keirstead further mentioned that it would attract the attention of economic experts and generate revenue by bringing items, such as medicines, from other countries to Sri Lanka for accreditation.

Professor Hans Keirstead, the founder of STEMedical in the United States, is an internationally recognised stem cell expert. He is also a respected entrepreneur in the field of regenerative medicine in the USA. It is also noteworthy that Professor Keirstead, who currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Human Immunome Project, is among the top 100 scientists in the world, as listed by Discover Magazine.

The President’s Senior Additional Secretary, Russel Aponsu; the Director-General of the National Initiative for Research and Development Commercialisation (NIRDC), Dr Muditha Senarath Yapa; and the Chief Executive Officer of STEMedical in the United States, Dr Nistor Gabriel Loan, also attended the event.

Continue Reading

News

Shop and Office Employees (Regulation of Employment and Remuneration) Act No. 19 of 1954 – (Subject No. 31) to be revised

Published

on

By

Service facilities, service periods, overtime allowances and provisions related to leave have been stipulated for shop and office employees by the Shop and Office Employees (Regulation of Employment and Remuneration) Act No. 19 of 1954 and has vested the subject Minister of Labour with powers to issue relevant orders by the said act.

According to the prevailing regulations, any female employee who has completed 18 years of age can be engaged in the duties of a receptionist of a hotel with accommodations, an attendant of a female coat room, an employee of a female garments room or an employee of a female washroom after 6.00 pm to 6.00 am.

However, it has been pointed out that numerous problematic situations have arose when maintaining operations, since services of  female stewardesses in hotels with accommodation facilities and restaurants can only be obtained up to 10.00 pm.

Therefore, the Cabinet of Ministers granted approval to the proposal submitted by the Minister of Labour to revise the regulation 3 issued under Shop and Office Employees (Regulation of Employment and Remuneration) Act No. 19 of 1954, so that the female employees who are above 18 years of age can engage in duties as food presenters / stewardesses after 6.00 pm to 6.00 am in hotels with residential facilities and in restaurants.

Continue Reading

News

Cabinet gives green light to purchase 05 power sets for Sri Lanka Railway Department

Published

on

By

The Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by the Minister of Transport, Highways, Ports, and Civil Aviation for the procurement of five power sets.

The Sri Lanka Railway Department does not have a sufficient number of power sets to operate passenger trains in suburban areas. A minimum of 96 power sets are required to maintain uninterrupted service. Since most of the power sets currently in operation have been in service for over 20 years there are frequent interruptions and breakdowns resulting in great inconvenience to daily commuters.

Continue Reading

Trending