UN Experts Seek Stronger Rights Safeguards in Sri Lanka's Proposed Terrorism Law

A replacement law faces demands for deeper changes

Sri Lanka's proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act would let the Defence Ministry secretary authorise detention for up to two months at a time, within an aggregate limit of one year. It would also preserve pending cases and significant parts of the existing terrorism law after formally repealing it. Those provisions are among the central concerns behind calls from United Nations experts for further revisions before Parliament passes the bill.

The experts welcomed plans to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, No. 48 of 1979, known as the PTA. They also recognised improvements in the latest draft. Their warning is that the replacement, known as the PSTA, still needs stronger limits on detention, military powers, restrictions on expression and protection for officials accused of wrongful conduct.

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, or OHCHR, set out detailed concerns in its comments on the bill, dated 13 October 2026. Its analysis examines the version gazetted on 22 September and identifies changes needed to prevent a recurrence of abuses associated with the PTA.

The UN experts described the human cost of the existing law in their statement:

"We welcome the proposed repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979, which enabled many serious human rights violations, including torture and enforced disappearances, committed before, during and since the horrific 26-year civil war in Sri Lanka, including abuse against minorities, human rights defenders, journalists and civil society," the experts said.

For people arrested under the proposed law, the practical questions are direct: how quickly can they see a lawyer, can a judge order their release, and who is responsible if they are harmed in custody?

How the proposal reached Parliament

Sri Lanka's Ministry of Justice first published the PSTA proposal in December 2025 and invited public feedback. The bill's stated purposes include protecting national security, preventing Sri Lankan territory from being used to prepare terrorism abroad, and providing powers to investigate, arrest, detain, prosecute and punish people for terrorism offences.

The later draft was published in the Government Gazette at the direction of the Minister of Justice and National Integration. The World Organisation Against Torture, or OMCT, says it was placed before Parliament on 6 October 2026.

• December 2025: The Ministry of Justice published the initial proposal and requested public comments.
• 18 January 2026: Human Rights Watch published its assessment of that draft.
• 3 March 2026: Amnesty International issued its commentary on the proposal.
• 22 September 2026: The revised bill was gazetted.
• 6 October 2026: The bill was placed before Parliament.
• 13 October 2026: OHCHR dated its detailed comments on the revised text.
• 6 November 2026: Trade unions and political activists protested against the terrorism and organised crime bills in Colombo.

Amnesty International's March commentary addressed the proposal published in December. The distinction between drafts matters because the September text changed several provisions that had attracted criticism earlier in the year.

What has improved in the revised draft?

OHCHR credits the revised bill with removing several ordinary crimes, including robbery, extortion and theft, from the listed acts of terrorism. It also removes a purpose linked to sovereignty and territorial integrity, narrows parts of the definition, and deletes a separate statutory curfew power.

The new text removes confessions to police as admissible evidence and requires audio and visual recording of police interviews and statements before a magistrate. It also requires notification of detention to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka within 48 hours and establishes a central database of arrests and case outcomes.

Journalism, research, civil society activity, human rights documentation and dissent receive additional safeguards. Some restrictive orders must meet tests of necessity and proportionality. In simple terms, authorities should have to show that a restriction serves a genuine purpose and goes no further than needed.

OHCHR nevertheless calls for substantive redrafting. Its central concern is that new safeguards sit alongside broad offences and extensive executive powers, leaving judges, lawyers and independent institutions without enough authority to prevent abuse.

Where should the definition of terrorism stop?

The UN experts want terrorism offences limited to acts intentionally causing death or serious injury, excluding mere property damage. OHCHR similarly urges a definition confined to intentional violence of sufficient gravity and a clearly specified terrorist purpose.

Section 3 of the revised bill includes death, grievous hurt and hostage taking. However, OHCHR says it also retains overly broad consequences involving property, the environment, electronic systems, culture and communications. Terms such as substantial economic loss remain insufficiently defined.

The question of intent is equally important. OHCHR objects to allowing knowledge as an alternative to specific intention. A law requiring an intention to commit terrorist violence sets a more demanding test than one based on what a person knew about an activity.

Peaceful protest, strikes, dissent, advocacy, humanitarian assistance and medical aid receive a safeguard under section 3(4). Yet OHCHR says the wording treats these activities as insufficient by themselves to infer the required intent, rather than expressly excluding protected conduct from terrorism offences. It wants a direct exclusion.

OMCT's legal brief makes a related warning: loosely framed offences could reach peaceful protest, strikes, online activity and legitimate expression. For a union organiser or campaigner, a precise definition determines whether ordinary civic activity can trigger extraordinary police powers.

Detention must come under effective court control

Sections 27 and 28 retain detention orders authorised by the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence. OHCHR says orders may run for up to two months at a time, with a total limit of one year. Extensions beyond the initial two months require High Court approval, while a suspect must appear before a magistrate at least every 14 days.

Those appearances are improvements, but the UN experts want judges to examine the legality, necessity and proportionality of detention and have the power to order release. OHCHR recommends independent judicial approval for every initial detention order and every extension.

Administrative detention means custody authorised by an executive official rather than detention ordered through the ordinary criminal court process. The concern here is the length of time a person may lose their liberty before a court has full power to assess the decision.

Section 30 establishes an Independent Review Committee. The experts say it must be genuinely independent, and its decisions must be binding. A committee that can recommend release without requiring authorities to act would offer much weaker protection.

Other routes into custody also need attention. OHCHR flags section 26(3)(b), which mandates remand even without a detention order, and section 29(2), which allows remand for up to one year. Bail would fall under restrictive rules, including High Court jurisdiction and an exceptional circumstances threshold for offences punishable by life imprisonment.

Human Rights Watch assessed the December draft as allowing up to two years without charge, combining one year on remand with one year under a Defence Secretary order; the National Christian Council of Sri Lanka says cumulative custody under the proposed framework could reach three years. The length of custody therefore depends on how the different detention and remand provisions operate together, as well as which draft is being assessed.

Protection must begin at the moment of arrest

The UN experts want detainees to have prompt access to legal counsel, interpretation, independent medical examinations, legal aid, family contact and visits by the Human Rights Commission. OHCHR says confidential access to a lawyer should begin at first contact with authorities and continue during questioning.

Records of transfers are another priority. The experts call for every movement from detention to be recorded and reported to prevent enforced disappearance and custody without outside contact. An enforced disappearance occurs when authorities conceal a person's detention or whereabouts, cutting that person off from legal protection.

Military and coast guard arrests create a particular concern. Under section 24, personnel must transfer an arrested person to police as soon as possible and within 24 hours, excluding travel time. OHCHR says this creates an additional period of custody depending on which authority makes the arrest.

During that period, OHCHR identifies no express guarantees of immediate legal access, a private medical examination, recording of questioning or direct judicial oversight. It wants the deadline for bringing a person before a judge to run from the moment of arrest, regardless of who carried it out.

Implementation also matters. Human Rights Watch says security forces have failed to follow existing requirements to notify the Human Rights Commission of PTA detentions. A shorter notification deadline will require reliable reporting and independent access to people in custody.

Military powers and restrictions on public activity

The UN experts call for the removal of military powers to arrest, question and search, citing the history of military violations. OHCHR takes a different position: any armed forces or coast guard role in law enforcement should be genuinely exceptional, limited in time, under clear civilian authority and subject to accountability.

OHCHR also finds that the bill lacks clear operational command and reporting arrangements for joint police and military operations. Those arrangements determine who gives orders, who supervises an arrest and who answers for misconduct.

Section 51 would allow police directives affecting movement, meetings, assemblies, activities and vehicles. Directives may last up to 72 hours, and urgent restrictions can operate for up to 24 hours before judicial approval. OHCHR wants tighter definitions and prompt independent review, including for directions preventing people from gathering at a particular location.

Organisations could face presidential proscription under section 59. Proscription means a legal ban. OHCHR objects to orders continuing until rescinded, without automatic expiry or periodic review, and recommends fixed terms, updated evidence for renewal and independent scrutiny.

The UN experts also seek cumulative time limits on restriction orders and powers to prohibit places. OHCHR calls for humanitarian exemptions so restrictions on organisations do not prevent relief from reaching people who need it.

Evidence, confidentiality and responsibility for abuse

The revised bill's removal of police confessions is an important change from the earlier framework. The UN experts want a broader rule excluding evidence or statements obtained unlawfully, through torture or through other ill treatment. OHCHR also identifies coercion, unlawful detention and serious procedural violations as grounds for exclusion.

Journalists, lawyers, medical professionals and human rights monitors need protection for confidential information. The experts call for safeguards covering journalistic sources, legal privilege, professional confidentiality and human rights monitoring, alongside stronger procedures when authorities withhold evidence on security grounds.

OHCHR warns that the bill's definition of confidential information is too broad. It could cover information about the functions or whereabouts of specified people, or material considered likely to harm national security and defence. Routine reporting on raids, arrests or public checkpoints could consequently face legal risk.

Expression offences also need a clear connection to violence. The experts say such offences should involve a likelihood of causing terrorist violence. OHCHR finds that provisions on inducing terrorism and distributing publications lack adequate requirements for intent and an actual risk that an offence would occur.

Accountability is the other part of the proposed reform. The experts reject immunity for wrongful official conduct and seek effective remedies: release, exclusion of evidence, disciplinary or criminal liability, compensation, rehabilitation, apology and guarantees against repetition. They also want presidential authority to direct enforcement limited.

Opposition grows as ministers defend the bills

Trade unions and political activists rallied in Colombo on 6 November against the terrorism and organised crime bills. Union activist Saman Rathnapriya said protests would continue unless they were withdrawn. Government spokesman Nalinda Jayatissa rejected claims that the proposed laws would harm trade unions or media freedoms.

Opposition MP Ajith P. Perera said on the 360 discussion programme that the government's proposed amendments to both bills were insufficient. In Parliament, he also raised concerns about the organised crime bill, including surveillance, police confessions and compelled disclosure of journalistic sources.

Deputy Minister of Public Security Sunil Watagala defended the legislative package as a response to criminal networks and said the government would defer to the Supreme Court review process.

The National Christian Council, chaired by Rev. Saman Perera, has called for withdrawal or substantial revision of the terrorism, organised crime and NGO bills. It links its concern about detention and military powers to proposals for digital surveillance under the organised crime bill and fines of up to Rs. 1 million for unregistered NGO operations.

Udith Lokubandara, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party's Foreign Affairs Coordinator and Wanni District Leader, said the party opposed the PSTA in its present form. He acknowledged that the PTA had survived under successive governments, including administrations led by his party, and called for consultation with legal professionals, rights institutions and affected communities.

Repeal, trade commitments and the next decisions

Sections 72 and 73 expose a central problem in the transition. Section 72 would repeal the PTA when the new law takes effect, but section 73 would preserve pending PTA cases and significant elements of its framework. OHCHR wants transitional arrangements reviewed so people do not remain subject to detention, evidence rules or proceedings incompatible with international human rights law.

Human Rights Watch's January assessment also places reform against continued use of the PTA. Government figures cited by the organisation show 49 arrests in the first five months of 2025, compared with 38 during all of 2024. That is 11 more arrests, about 29 percent more, in a much shorter period.

Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch, called for an immediate pause in use of the existing law:

The government should impose an immediate moratorium on the existing law, and prepare rights-respecting legislation through inclusive public consultations.

Sri Lanka's trade commitments add urgency. Human Rights Watch says the country committed in 2017 to replacing the PTA with legislation respecting human rights as a condition for restored EU GSP+ preferences. The scheme gives eligible countries preferential access to the European market, tied to implementation of international conventions.

The government plans to apply by December 2026 for renewed access under a revised framework. Parliamentary debate and voting on the bills were expected in the coming weeks, but no exact dates or Supreme Court outcome were given. The UN experts have offered technical assistance and urged consultation with civil society before further legislative action.

Key Points

• UN experts welcome repeal of the PTA but seek further changes to its proposed replacement.
• OHCHR credits the revised draft with removing police confessions and adding recording and notification safeguards.
• Major concerns include broad offences, executive detention, military powers and restrictions on expression.
• The experts want courts empowered to review detention promptly and order release.
• Transitional provisions would preserve pending PTA cases and parts of the existing framework.
• Ministers defend the bills while unions, opposition politicians and religious organisations demand stronger protections or withdrawal.