Transparency International Sri Lanka calls for the terrorism Bill to be withdrawn — and the PTA repealed without a wait

Transparency International Sri Lanka has asked the government to withdraw the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill 2026 and to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act “without further delay” — putting a second demand alongside the first that most accounts of its statement lead past.

TISL published the statement at 12.50 p.m. on Thursday, in English and Sinhala. The Daily Mirror reported it about two and a half hours later, in an account that follows the original closely.

Four objections

The organisation says it accepts the State’s responsibility to address legitimate national security concerns, but that counter-terrorism law must not undermine fundamental rights, due process, judicial independence or “the democratic space necessary for public participation and dissent.”

The definition of terrorism. It covers damage to property, the environment, cultural property and electronic systems, and acts creating risks to public health. TISL’s objection is not to the breadth alone but to what sits behind it: the absence of sufficiently stringent requirements on intentionality and on a high likelihood of serious harm. Without those, it argues, conduct that ordinary criminal law should handle falls inside a terrorism offence — and the breadth then travels outward into associated offences such as aiding and abetting and disseminating terrorist publications.

Military involvement in law enforcement. The Bill gives the armed forces and the Coast Guard powers of arrest, search, seizure and questioning. TISL’s concern is the missing scaffolding — no clear provisions on applicable safeguards, transparency or chains of command when military personnel use them.

Administrative detention. Detention orders could be issued by the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence for an initial two months, with the Magistrate’s ability to independently assess whether detention is necessary curtailed. Recommendations of the proposed Review Committee could be rejected by the Minister.

Proscription. The presidential power to proscribe organisations carries no specified time limit and limited safeguards, with consequences for an organisation’s ability to operate, raise funds, hold meetings and conduct advocacy.

Where TISL sits among the objectors — and it is not at the far end

The Bill was gazetted on 22 September and presented to Parliament on 6 October. TISL is at least the fourth named body to object in this desk’s coverage since: Internet Media Action warned on 1 October of a “digital dictatorship”; Saliya Pieris said on 8 October that the tabled Bill departs from his own expert committee’s recommendations on bail; and the Frontline Socialist Party warned on 11 October about its use against political dissent, calling on NPP members to vote against it.

A call to withdraw the Bill reads as the hardest line available. It is not. The same reporting records that more than 240 civil society groups have called for the PTA to be repealed with no replacement at all. TISL does not join them: it asks explicitly that “any replacement legislation” establish clear legal limits on executive authority, effective accountability mechanisms and safeguards against arbitrary detention. It wants this Bill gone and a better one, not an empty space.

One further point of context. TISL is an anti-corruption organisation, and every previous appearance it makes in this archive is on that beat — the Anti-Corruption Act, asset declarations, the clause 17 referendum question. This is an intervention outside its usual subject.

What happens next is not in the government’s gift alone

Withdrawal is being asked of a Bill that has already been tabled and is under challenge in the Supreme Court, which is to deliver a determination on the petitions against it. Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara has said a new anti-terror law is a necessity, and the government has indicated the Bill could still be amended at Committee Stage.

Not reported

Neither the statement nor the Daily Mirror’s account says whether TISL has made submissions to the Supreme Court, written to the Justice Ministry, or had any response from the government. No government reply to TISL is reported. Neither gives a date for the Supreme Court determination — still unreported since 8 October — or says whether the government will move its own amendments at Committee Stage.

Searches also surfaced a comments document on the Bill from the UN Human Rights Office, dated 14 October, and a statement from the Centre for Policy Alternatives. Neither could be retrieved from this desk — the OHCHR file returned a connection failure — so neither is described or cited here beyond noting that they exist and are not yet covered in this archive.

On sourcing: the Daily Mirror is the only verified newsroom reachable from this desk to have reported TISL’s statement. Checks of the Daily FT, the Island, EconomyNext, NewsFirst, Hiru News, the Colombo Gazette and the Sunday Times returned nothing on it, and Ada Derana has been unreachable for twenty-seven consecutive days. The second source cited here is TISL’s own statement, which the Daily Mirror’s account tracks closely — that makes this report well-grounded on the facts of what TISL said, but it is not corroboration by a second newsroom.