UN Urges Major Rewrite of Sri Lanka Terrorism Bill as Rights and Trade Concerns Grow

A year in detention at the centre of the dispute

Sri Lanka's proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill would allow the Defence Ministry secretary to authorise detention for two months before an extension requires High Court approval, according to a 19-page assessment by the United Nations Human Rights Office. Detention could continue for a maximum of one year. The office is urging a comprehensive rewrite before the legislation becomes law.

The bill, gazetted on September 22, 2026, is intended to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act, known as the PTA. The UN assessment acknowledges improvements, including the removal of police confessions as admissible evidence, but warns that the proposed replacement retains or expands powers that could enable arbitrary detention, torture and restrictions on peaceful political activity.

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, or OHCHR, says the central problem is who controls those powers. Under the proposal, an executive official, rather than an independent judge, would make the initial decision to hold someone for an extended period. Courts would become involved in approving subsequent extensions.

The debate now reaches beyond detention. Journalists face uncertainty over reporting on security operations, organisations could be banned by presidential decision, and police and military personnel would receive substantial enforcement powers. Human Rights Watch has also challenged a proposed organised crime law, while the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce has warned that legal safeguards matter for investment and continued access to European Union trade preferences.

For President Anura Kumara Dissanayake's National People's Power government, the proposals also put its 2024 election promise to repeal the PTA and other repressive laws under scrutiny.

How the proposal reached Parliament

Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara introduced the terrorism bill in Parliament on October 6. The government presents it as a reform of the PTA, which dates from 1979. An initial draft released in December 2025 drew opposition, after which an expert group was appointed to consider revisions.

Saliya Peiris, a former president of the Bar Association who served on that group, said on October 7 that the version submitted to Parliament departed substantially from agreements concerning detention limits and magistrates' powers to grant bail. Bail allows an accused person to remain outside custody while proceedings continue, subject to conditions imposed by a court.

The main developments span the government's election pledge, the drafting process and the parliamentary submission:

• September 23, 2024: Dissanayake took office following an election campaign promising to repeal repressive laws, including the PTA.
• December 2025: The first draft of the proposed replacement was released. Opposition prompted the appointment of an expert group.
• September 22, 2026: The revised Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill was gazetted, formally publishing the proposal.
• October 6: Nanayakkara introduced the bill in Parliament.
• October 7: Peiris publicly challenged departures from agreements reached during the expert review.

At least 12 people have reportedly been arrested under the PTA since Dissanayake took office. The existing law therefore remains part of current policing while Parliament considers its replacement. No date for a final parliamentary vote is given.

When would a judge see a detainee?

OHCHR identifies two separate periods that matter to anyone arrested: the wait before appearing before a magistrate and the longer period during which detention can continue. The bill would allow up to 48 hours before a magistrate sees someone arrested by police, or up to 72 hours following an arrest by the armed forces.

The UN office recommends bringing every suspect before a magistrate as soon as possible, ordinarily within 24 hours, regardless of who makes the arrest. The proposed military limit of 72 hours is three times that recommended period; the police limit of 48 hours is twice as long. Earlier court appearances give a judge a chance to examine the reasons for detention and concerns about treatment.

The Defence Ministry secretary could separately authorise detention for up to two months at a time, with High Court approval required for extensions beyond the initial two months. OHCHR identifies a maximum total of one year under the terrorism bill. Human Rights Watch's broader criticism of the two proposed laws refers to detention periods reaching one year or, under some provisions, two years.

OHCHR's objection centres on the initial two months being authorised within the executive branch. A ministry official belongs to the government carrying out security policy; an independent court provides a separate check on whether the state has lawful grounds to keep a person in custody.

How broadly would terrorism be defined?

Section 3 of the proposed terrorism law covers acts intended to improperly compel a government or international organisation to act, or refrain from acting, in pursuit of a political or ideological objective. The listed harms extend beyond death, injury and hostage taking to serious damage affecting property, transport, infrastructure, public health and electronic systems. Substantial economic loss is also included.

OHCHR warns that broad terrorism offences could be used against journalists, human rights defenders, civil society organisations and peaceful protesters. The concern is especially concrete for activities that interrupt transport or services: a strike or demonstration may cause economic disruption while pursuing a political demand.

The bill contains language protecting protest, advocacy, dissent and industrial action, and OHCHR welcomes additional protections for journalism and civil society activity. The UN office nevertheless wants firmer boundaries so that legitimate activity is protected throughout the legislation, including in the definitions used to bring charges.

The proposed penalties make those boundaries consequential. Terrorism offences causing death could carry life imprisonment. Other terrorism offences could bring up to 20 years in prison and a fine of 20 million rupees. Attempts, assistance, conspiracy and preparation could carry up to 15 years, including circumstances in which the planned act has not occurred.

Clear definitions would help police, prosecutors and courts identify the conduct that Parliament intends to punish. They would also help people organising a strike, publishing information or attending a demonstration understand their legal position before an arrest occurs.

Reporting on security operations could carry risks

OHCHR singles out provisions on confidential information and terrorist publications as risks to legitimate reporting. Journalists routinely gather information about arrests, investigations and security operations, precisely the subjects that could fall within broadly framed restrictions.

The proposed offences include statements, words or signs that directly or indirectly incite terrorism, with penalties reaching 15 years in prison, a fine of 15 million rupees, or both. Other provisions address possessing or distributing a terrorist publication, or helping another person access one.

Online publishers and people managing social media pages could consequently face legal exposure over material they share or make accessible. Human rights organisations also need to collect and retain information about alleged abuses, including accounts involving police or military activity.

The UN office calls for explicit protection of journalistic sources, legitimate reporting in the public interest and human rights documentation. Confidential sources can be essential when a witness fears retaliation. Legal protection would allow journalists to investigate security matters while keeping those sources safe.

Military powers and restrictions on public activity

Sections 19, 20 and 24 would give armed forces personnel and Coast Guard officers powers involving arrest, search and seizure without a warrant in specified circumstances. The powers include stopping and searching people, entering premises and seizing documents, objects or devices such as phones and laptops.

OHCHR warns that military involvement in ordinary law enforcement can increase the risk of arbitrary detention, torture and enforced disappearance, particularly when suspects remain in military custody without adequate safeguards. Enforced disappearance occurs when someone is detained and the authorities conceal the detention or the person's whereabouts, leaving families unable to find them.

The UN office recommends keeping primary responsibility for law enforcement with civilian police and removing broad military powers of arrest, detention and search. The proposal's reference to exceptional circumstances also includes military deployment to maintain public order in an area, potentially bringing these powers into situations involving civilian gatherings.

Section 51 would allow urgent bans on assemblies and other activities for up to 72 hours, with violations punishable by up to one year in prison. Section 59 would empower the President to proscribe organisations, meaning formally ban them, without prior court approval or a fixed review period. OHCHR seeks clearer limits, stronger judicial oversight and independent review of restrictions affecting gatherings, movement and communications.

Improvements leave a difficult transition

OHCHR welcomes several changes in the latest terrorism draft. Police confessions would no longer be admissible as evidence, police interviews would require audiovisual recording, and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka would have to be notified of arrests and detention within 48 hours.

Removing police confessions addresses a major incentive for coercive interrogation: obtaining a statement that can be used to secure a conviction. Recording interviews creates a record of how questioning takes place. Notification gives the national human rights institution information it can use to scrutinise detention.

The UN office nevertheless considers the protections insufficient alongside the proposed detention powers and broad offences. Its recommendations connect the safeguards: prompt access to a magistrate, independent control over detention, clearer definitions and limits on the authorities exercising arrest powers.

Transitional provisions create another concern. Pending PTA cases and certain existing regulations could continue after repeal. For people already facing proceedings, the change in the law could therefore leave substantial parts of the old legal framework in place. OHCHR wants those arrangements reviewed as part of a comprehensive redrafting, with meaningful consultation involving civil society, independent institutions and legal experts.

A second bill widens the rights dispute

Human Rights Watch has also criticised the proposed Organized Crime Prevention Bill. Elaine Pearson, the organisation's Asia director, has warned that its provisions could encourage police torture. The organisation's objections extend to surveillance, restrictions on speech and movement, and detention without sufficient judicial supervision.

The organised crime proposal has drawn criticism over provisions allowing police confessions to be used as evidence. This moves in the opposite direction from the revised terrorism bill, where OHCHR welcomes the removal of such confessions. The difference matters because safeguards against coercive questioning would vary depending on which law authorities use.

Human Rights Watch also warns about police access to telephone and location data without a court order. Location data can reveal where a person travels and whom they may meet, making independent oversight relevant to everyday privacy as well as criminal investigations.

The organisation has called for the immediate suspension of PTA use and withdrawal of the organised crime bill. Its position places the government's current enforcement practices alongside its legislative plans: repealing an old law, changing how police operate now and deciding what powers a replacement should contain are connected decisions.

Businesses connect legal certainty with trade

The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce has submitted observations on the proposed terrorism law, calling for clear definitions, appropriate judicial oversight and adequate due process safeguards. Due process means the procedures that ensure authorities act lawfully and people have a fair chance to challenge decisions affecting them.

The Chamber recognises the government's efforts to strengthen national security but says predictable rules matter for investor confidence and Sri Lanka's reputation as a place to trade and invest. Businesses need to understand which activities are lawful and how official decisions can be challenged.

The Chamber also connects legislative reform with continued access to the European Union's GSP+ trade concession. GSP+ gives eligible developing countries favourable tariff treatment on exports in return for commitments that include implementing international human rights conventions. The Chamber says those benefits support exports, employment and foreign exchange earnings.

Human Rights Watch likewise warns that the proposals could jeopardise Sri Lanka's international rights commitments and GSP+ preferences. The Chamber urges alignment with international standards and is finalising its views on the organised crime proposal. OHCHR, meanwhile, has offered technical assistance to help Sri Lanka develop legislation that protects both national security and fundamental rights.

Key Points

• OHCHR urges a comprehensive rewrite of Sri Lanka's proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill.
• The Defence Ministry secretary could authorise an initial two months of detention, with court approval required for extensions and a maximum total of one year.
• The UN wants suspects brought before a magistrate ordinarily within 24 hours, rather than the proposed limits of 48 or 72 hours.
• Broad offences, military enforcement powers and restrictions on organisations and gatherings are central concerns.
• The revised terrorism draft removes police confessions as evidence and requires recorded police interviews.
• Human Rights Watch also challenges the organised crime proposal, while the Ceylon Chamber links legal safeguards to investment and continued EU GSP+ access.