Sri Lanka’s proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill has come under fire from human rights activists and lawyers for being overbroad, vague, and a threat to civil liberties.
The bill, which seeks to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), has been criticised for giving authorities sweeping powers to suppress dissent and curtail freedom of expression.
Overbroad and vague
“The definition (of the bill) does not align with the current internationally-agreed-upon formulation. It is overbroad and vague and one of the elements is a provision from the ICCPR Act, which thereby elevates the offence of advocating national or racial hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, to a terror offence. In the past, the ICCPR Act has been used to crush dissent, so if it is elevated to a terror offence it can endanger the freedom of expression,” said human rights activist and Attorney-at-Law Ambika Satkunanathan.
The proposed bill has a broad definition of terrorism, which includes acts that “cause damage to cultural or religious sites” and “incite racial hatred, violence, or discrimination”. This has raised concerns that the Government could use the law to target peaceful protesters and activists.
“There are offences which, if you commit with the aforementioned intent, become terrorist offences. For instance, the offence of destruction of religious or cultural property. For example, the people who are protesting the destruction of a Hindu temple and construction of a Buddhist temple in its place in Kurunthamalai, Mullaitivu, could be accused of destroying religious property with intent to incite religious hatred or violence,” said Satkunanathan.
Militarisation of law enforcement
The bill also gives the military powers to arrest and detain individuals, as well as search vehicles and vessels.
“Then of course there is the militarisation of law enforcement because the military is being empowered to arrest people and are given 24 hours to hand them over to the Police. They can also stop and search vehicles and vessels,” said Satkunanathan.
Under the proposed bill, detention orders can still be issued and the period of one year remains the same. “Under the PTA the detention order is issued by the Minister of Defense while in the proposed law it can be issued by a DIG,” she further noted.
Despite some provisions for due process rights, such as the issuance of an arrest receipt to the family and magistrate visits to detainees, there are still concerns that the bill undermines the authority of the magistrate. “The PTA was brutal in its violations, the new bill is quite sophisticated. We will be challenging this in the Supreme Court once it’s placed in the Order Paper of Parliament,” said Satkunanathan.
‘Worse than the PTA’
Constitutional Lawyer and Centre for Policy Alternatives Researcher Bhavani Fonseka said the proposed bill was worse than the PTA.
“The positive would be that confessions are out. That is the only positive thing. The other areas are very problematic. The broad definition of terrorism is one aspect. The fact that the DIG can issue detention orders and that the powers of the President are very broad under this and he can issue prescription orders, restriction orders, and regulations, which is very worrying,” said Fonseka.
Fonseka also raised concerns about the lack of consultation with civil society and lawyers in the drafting of the bill. “As far as I know, there has been no consultation with civil society or lawyers or any of the others who have been working with detainees or working on this issue – that is one problem,” said Fonseka.
Amnesty International Researcher Thyagi Ruwanpathirana said the proposed bill was worrying and called for substantial amendments to bring it in line with international law.
The proposed bill also allows the President to declare a place as a prohibited area without any time limit. The person placed in charge of the prohibited place can make arbitrary on-the-spot decisions about who can come inside and outside the area.
The Government has a long history of using anti-terrorism laws to target political opponents, human rights activists, and journalists and as such, there have been repeated calls for the repeal of these laws both domestically and internationally.
Political parties to take action
A number of political parties and trade unions are preparing to challenge the new bill before the Supreme Court. Freedom People’s Congress Leader Dullas Alahapperuma stated that his collective would challenge the bill in courts and carry out an awareness campaign about the dangers posed by the bill to civic rights.
“We will act against it in Parliament and in courts. We will work with the civil society groups to defeat it,” Alahapperuma said, adding that the bill contained clauses which affected the freedom of expression of the citizenry. “This bill will adversely impact our citizens and their rights. We cannot allow this anti-democratic legislation to be passed. We will take this to the Supreme Court. This affects everyone in Sri Lanka,” Alahapperuma stressed.
Echoing Alahapperuma’s thoughts, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) MP and Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella opined that the Government was planning to suppress civil society and trade unions using the new anti-terror legislation, adding that the SJB too would take the matter before the courts. He emphasised that a broad coalition against the bill must be formed.
It is learnt that several other political parties are also contemplating taking legal action against the bill.