As has happened on many occasions in Sri Lanka’s history, in a bid to deal with one issue, the Government appears to be ready to bring in a bigger issue. That is what many who are concerned about the potential detrimental impacts of the Government’s ardent plans to enact the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill opine, while many more question the Government’s motives behind presenting the Bill.

The proposed Bill is a crucial one to Sri Lanka due to many reasons, the main one being the expectation that it would replace the disastrous Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (PTA). In fact, this Bill comes in response to countless demands and requests from both national and international actors and also victims of the PTA to replace the PTA with an accountable, pro-human rights anti-terror law. Therefore, this Bill has a significant impact on the public as well as the country’s disgraceful track record concerning human rights. What is more, the importance of not repeating the type of human rights violations that were caused by the PTA in the future cannot be stressed enough.

However, despite the importance of the changes this Bill is expected to bring about and the fact that the debate on the Bill is scheduled for this week, the political authority, even the very Government that presented it, remains uncertain about their stance regarding the Bill. As was reported by The Daily Morning yesterday (24), the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), the main Parliamentary Opposition, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and other parties are yet to arrive at a decision on the amendments to the proposed Bill, while the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has called for its revocation in the initial stage. The only opinion these parties seem to have is whether they want to support or oppose the Bill. In a context where Parliamentarians including those in the Ruling Party and in the main Parliamentary Opposition Party have raised various concerns about the provisions of the Bill, they should take their role in the debate on the Bill very seriously.

This unwillingness, or the lethargy, to weigh in on a decision of great national and international importance is inexcusable. Put simply, forming laws is one of the primary responsibilities of these “lawmakers” and they simply cannot not have an opinion about what sort of amendments need to be made to the Bill when they have raised concerns about the provisions of the Bill. Voting for or against the Bill is simply the most convenient, or the obvious decision emanating from the prevailing party-centric political culture, but the MPs need to understand that their role in forming laws is a much bigger one. They should also understand that the PTA needs to be repealed and replaced, and that this Bill could be the best chance of achieving it, provided that the necessary amendments are made.

The political authority needs to take their responsibility more seriously. That is not just because they are responsible for forming laws. They must correct the grave mistake of enacting and continuing for decades, the PTA under various Governments, which has led to a situation where a pro-human rights anti-terror law is demanded by many parties, by ensuring that this Bill is passed with appropriate amendments in order to ensure that it is not another PTA. It is a shame that despite the fact that various parties, including those that have nothing to do with the law-making process but are concerned about the country’s human rights situation, have already expressed their stance about the Bill and have proposed amendments, the political authority is yet to make up its mind. It is regrettable that even valid concerns about the Bill, including the fact that the Bill does not address many human rights related issues that exist in the PTA, have not received adequate attention or have been ignored entirely.

This is an opportunity for the political authority to correct the historic mistake that is the PTA, gain the confidence of the public and of the international community, ensure that the new anti-terror law does not become a weapon against the public, and most importantly, do their job.