Governments, establishing new laws and regulations or updating existing ones, from time to time, is nothing unusual. Yet, what generates an extraordinary situation is where the Government’s law establishing attempts are seen as ambiguous by the law-abiding general public.
Such situations were common in the Sri Lankan context, and the most recent being the repeal to the Anti-terror bill {Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act No. 48 of 1979} and establishing the new Online Safety Bill.
Undoubtedly it is the duty of a government to update laws and introduce new laws to suit the modern world's challenges. With the modern world being entangled in a web of high-tech, chaos and crime, yes, there is a significant need for a government to implement new laws or amend the existing ones to suit the modern context and protect its citizens from harm.
Be as it may, the Sri Lankan current context has seen more chaos than expected discipline by implementing new laws and orders. People’s panic in such instances shows how the law can harm an individual rather than protect them from harm.
The introduction of the two legal drafts has created a significant high-level of resistance among the public, with the initial opposition from legal/communication experts and human right defenders. The latest from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka passing a resolution to challenge the Anti-terror Bill and the Online safety Bill. Over the past few days, many have critisised the new draft and such resistance is nothing new to the Sri Lankans. A similar occurrence, in a much diluted form, was observed during the establishment of the ICCPR Act 2007 formulated based on the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Sri Lanka being signatories to the Covenant. Several incidents in the recent past indicated how the law could be misused by the Government and the law enforcement agencies as well as the Judiciary. It was shocking to realise how a government could use a law to punish a person by keeping the person as long as possible under the custody of the law enforcement agency, purely based on a report of an ongoing police investigation. The notion of punishment and non bailable conditions created by the law has supported to establish a fear psychosis among the general public on any new law the Government proposes.
Following the establishment of the ICCPR Act, artists, authors faced legal action, arrests, imprisonment and later ended with a silence from the authorities. No explanations given – none. With such lessons, obviously the public is driven to panic at the first instance hearing the Government’s attempts to implement a new law. It surely does not mean that it is wrong for the Government to propose laws. Surely it can. What matters is the lack of assurance from the State on unbiased, democratic implementation of the new laws. Lessons learnt by the public during numerous instances from the past, generate the resistance and primarily, the Government should clearly understand this situation and address it properly.
Unfortunately, the Government needs to be re-reminded, periodically, on the importance of holistic approach. Although it is still a mystery how the Government forgets the concept in a short span, yet, we as citizens loving democracy, need to keep the reminding process alive. Laws alone cannot secure citizens from harm. Law is essential so is the attitudinal change, elevated legal and political literacy, social welfare and many such elements of good governance.
The Government must first make their priorities right and establish a trust with its people, ensure them that democracy and freedom are protected. And above all, the Government must clearly understand that any law or any order they introduce should protect the people’s right to live freely and fairly, and not to restrict them and tighten them in regulations.