Sri Lanka’s principal private-sector body has told the government that the two security bills now before Parliament need clearer drafting and stronger safeguards, and has linked the question directly to the EU trade concession that underpins the country’s largest export market.
The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce has submitted its observations on the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill and is finalising its views on the Prevention of Organised Crime Bill, EconomyNext reported on Thursday. Those views are to be submitted to the relevant authorities shortly.
What the chamber is asking for
The chamber called for a careful review of the draft legislation to ensure it provides clear definitions, appropriate judicial oversight and adequate due process safeguards.
“Such measures are essential to maintaining investor confidence, legal certainty, and Sri Lanka’s reputation as a predictable and rules-based destination for trade and investment,” it said.
It framed the request around GSP+, the European Union concession that it said plays a vital role in supporting exports, employment, foreign exchange earnings and economic growth. The chamber “urged that new legislation be aligned with Sri Lanka’s international commitments and internationally accepted standards, thereby strengthening the country’s prospects for the continuation of GSP+ benefits.”
The chamber said it remains committed to engaging with policymakers to ensure legislative reform supports growth and competitiveness while meeting national priorities. It acknowledged the government’s efforts to strengthen national security and meet emerging challenges, Hiru News reported in its Sinhala filing at 12.30 p.m.
Why GSP+ is the lever
GSP+ is conditional on compliance with 27 international conventions, a substantial number of them on human rights. That conditionality is what converts a domestic security-law debate into a trade exposure, and it is the second time this month a business organisation has said so: the Joint Apparel Association Forum warned on 20 October that the terrorism bill as drafted puts the concession at risk.
The chamber’s intervention is broader than the apparel industry’s in two respects. It speaks for the private sector across industries rather than one export trade, and it covers both bills rather than the terrorism bill alone.
The wider objection
The two bills have drawn a sustained run of objections. The terrorism bill was submitted to Parliament on 6 October and the organised crimes bill on 20 October. Since then the Human Rights Commission has called for the organised crimes bill to be withdrawn, Amnesty International did the same, the Bar Association has sought the withdrawal of both, Human Rights Watch this week said the organised crimes bill would enable detention without adequate evidence, and 22 petitions against the terrorism bill are before the Supreme Court.
The chamber’s position is notably narrower than those. It does not ask for either bill to be withdrawn — only reviewed and amended.
A note on the headline
Hiru’s English headline slug for this story reads “GSP+ access preservation bills introduced”, which suggests legislation has been brought forward to protect the concession. No such bills exist. The story is the reverse: a business body warning that two security bills already before Parliament could endanger GSP+ unless they are redrafted.
Not reported
Neither filing sets out what the chamber’s specific objections to the terrorism bill are, or which clauses it wants changed. Neither carries a government response, and neither says when either bill is scheduled for debate.
