Internet Media Action (IMA) has criticised the government’s proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTA), warning that several provisions could severely restrict freedom of expression, media freedom and digital rights, and open the way to what it called a “digital dictatorship” by extending anti-terrorism powers into online spaces.
The statement, issued on 1 October, concerns the Bill gazetted on 22 September to replace the 1979 Prevention of Terrorism Act, Newswire reported.
IMA acknowledged that parts of the original draft were amended after domestic and international pressure — including Clause 55, on interception of communications and decryption — but said the changes do not address its fundamental concerns.
The clauses it objects to
- Clause 3. Including offences such as unlawfully compelling the government and seriously disrupting communication systems within the definition of terrorism. IMA argues the wording risks online campaigns, petitions and hashtag protests against government policy being read as terrorist activity, citing the #GotaGoHome campaign of the 2022 uprising as an example of how digital platforms drive public mobilisation.
- Clause 9. Wording such as “indirectly inciting” could expose people to rigorous imprisonment of up to 15 years over political satire, memes, posters, TikTok videos and Reels.
- Clauses 10 and 59. Sharing, retweeting, forwarding or linking to certain publications could be treated as circulating terrorist material. IMA also objects to provisions empowering the President to restrict online publications by gazette.
- Clause 15. Imprisonment of up to seven years for failing to provide information, which IMA says would undermine the confidentiality of journalistic sources and whistleblowers.
- Clauses 61 and 74. Allowing the Defence Secretary to declare locations prohibited for 72 hours, restrict photography and videography, and classify security-related information.
On Clause 11, which contains protections for legitimate media reporting, IMA argued the safeguard is weak in practice: requiring a journalist to establish that reporting was done in good faith, against the background risk of arrest, invites widespread self-censorship.
The political charge
IMA said the problems cannot be fixed by isolated amendments, and pointed to what it described as inconsistencies with international human rights standards.
It also accused the National People’s Power government of contradicting its own election pledge — that it would repeal the PTA in its entirety — by advancing the PSTA instead.
Context and caveats
The Bill has moved steadily: Cabinet approved it in August before the September gazette, and a draft reached the Justice Minister in May. Sri Lanka ranked 134th on the RSF press freedom index this year.
This account rests on a single report of IMA’s statement; no verified newsroom had published its own coverage of it at the time of writing. The clause numbers, penalties and characterisations above are IMA’s reading of the Bill, not an independent assessment of its text, and the government had not responded publicly.
