On Tuesday (16), President Ranil Wickremesinghe announced that the state of emergency, which was imposed on account of the tense situation that prevailed for months and is due to end at the end of this week if not extended, would not be extended. He stated that this is due to the fact that the country’s situation has returned to normalcy. In a context where the state of emergency has remained the centre of several controversial arrests made during the said period, the majority of people would agree that this is a good move. However, they would also agree that the Government should have taken this decision earlier, especially given the adverse impacts of the state of emergency. Even though this decision may not fully reverse the damages caused by those impacts, due to this decision, the country can certainly achieve much in the coming few months. Among those who would welcome this decision are activists, especially those who were involved in the Galle Face protests, or the “aragalaya” (struggle) movement, who have come to be known as the main target of the many arrests that were made by the authorities citing the unlawful aspects of the “aragalaya” such as trespassing and occupying State-owned buildings. It should be noted that they were the main group that opposed the state of emergency, as it contains provisions that can be used to infringe on their fundamental rights, which are not a part of the civil or criminal laws, at least for a short period of time after arrest. At the same time, for the international community, this decision could be a sign that the Government is willing to restore the rule of law by not extending this controversial law. This is more important to Sri Lanka than one would imagine, because the international community’s opinion about how lawful and peaceful Sri Lanka is has a lot to do with foreign investments and tourism. In fact, the imposition and extension of the state of emergency had given the international community the impression that Sri Lanka is in a more unstable situation than it actually is. At a time when cash-strapped Sri Lanka remains desperately in need of foreign currency, the inflow of which has declined to an unmanageable level with no sign of returning to the previous level, it can benefit from the confidence that this decision can create among the international community. The imposition and exercise of this law was particularly harmful to Sri Lanka in terms of human rights. The non-extension of the state of emergency can also attract other forms of international support, such as political and financial support, which had stopped due to the image that the Government had created for itself as an oppressive Government. Moreover, we can only hope that this decision would reverse the biggest damage that the Government wrought by imposing and extending the state of emergency even when it was not really necessary, and that the Government realizes its mistake. It is common knowledge that restrictions, when extended for a lengthy period unnecessarily, lose their impact on the country, as they become a normal part of the people’s daily lives. The popular opinion is that even when the state of emergency was in force, except in a handful of cases such as the 9 May arson attacks, the country’s affairs could have been handled without declaring a state of emergency. However, the Government decided to extend it, and the above mentioned matters are merely a few damages that the extension caused. While the non-extension of the state of emergency is a welcome move, the Government still has a long way to go in order to regain the respect and confidence it lost, and this is merely a beginning.