The Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill would bring reporting in Sri Lanka to a halt, the Joint Opposition said at a media briefing on Monday, setting out the clearest account yet of the penalties the Opposition believes the legislation carries.
JO Convener Prof. G.L. Peiris told the briefing the Bill “will end media freedom in this country,” the Daily Mirror reported at 8.31 a.m. on Wednesday. The filing places the briefing on the previous day.
The specific claims
Peiris made four claims that go beyond the general objection:
- Sources could be compelled. He said the Bill contains provisions that could require media personnel to reveal their sources, and that journalists “will be unable to obtain information from their sources if they are forced to disclose their identities.”
- A penalty figure. Influencing the government to do or refrain from doing something could be treated as terrorism, carrying 15 years’ imprisonment or a fine of not less than Rs. 15 million.
- Thresholds are missing. Archaeological sites, public health and the power grid are listed as areas vulnerable to terrorism, and Peiris said harm to them should be covered only above a specified threshold — but “no such threshold has been specified.”
- Secondary liability. If a speech at a rally were deemed an act of terrorism, “even a person distributing leaflets inviting people to attend that rally could be penalised.”
He also said the Defence Secretary would be empowered to bar a person from entering any location, and that the IGP or a DIG could seek the Defence Secretary’s approval to arrest a terrorism suspect, who could then be detained for two months without trial.
Where the claim is stronger than the text
One assertion needs checking against what has actually been published of the Bill. Peiris said flatly that “the legislation provides for a media report to be considered an act of terrorism.”
The clause-level accounts newsrooms published when the Bill reached Parliament describe something narrower: publishing material that encourages the public to commit an act of terrorism would itself be an offence, with carve-outs for fair and accurate reporting. A report is not an offence under that account merely by being a report. Peiris’s own next sentence concedes the distinction — “Reporting cannot be considered an act of influencing someone to do something under the Bill” — which reads as an argument about how the clause would be applied rather than about what it says.
His two-month detention figure, by contrast, matches the independent account in this archive. The World Organisation Against Torture made the same reading on 4 October, adding that such orders are renewable, which Peiris did not mention.
Why he raised containers and coal
Peiris named two stories to make the point that the Bill would cost the public specific disclosures: the disappearance of 323 containers and the purchase of inferior coal. Both were brought to light by journalists working from sources, and both have since produced parliamentary and commission proceedings.
Where the Bill stands
The Bill was presented to Parliament on 6 October and is now before the Supreme Court, which had received 22 petitions against it by 20 October. Transparency International Sri Lanka has called for its withdrawal, and Amnesty International made the same demand this week over the separate Organised Crimes Bill.
Not reported
The filing does not name the clauses Peiris relies on for any of his claims, so none of the four can be checked against a section number. It does not say which offence carries the 15-year/Rs. 15 million penalty, or whether that is the maximum or a range. It does not report the government’s response, name any other JO speaker, or say where the briefing was held.
Neither the Daily Mirror nor this desk has established whether the provision Peiris describes on sources is a general power or one requiring judicial authorisation — a distinction that decides how far his claim goes.
On sourcing: this report rests on a single verified newsroom. The NewsFirst and EconomyNext rails carried no filing on the briefing when this was written, and Ada Derana has returned a CloudFront block to this desk for 47 consecutive days. The comparisons above are drawn from this archive’s earlier reporting, not from the Daily Mirror.