Human Rights Watch has called on the government to withdraw the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill, saying it risks enabling arbitrary detention, torture and other violations, in a statement carried by Daily Mirror.

The bill was submitted to Parliament on 20 October. HRW argues that it, together with the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill submitted on 6 October, reproduces abusive provisions of the existing counterterrorism framework the government pledged to dismantle.

“Sri Lanka’s organized crime bill would enable prolonged detention without adequate judicial oversight or evidence of criminal conduct, and could encourage torture by allowing convictions based on confessions obtained by the police,” said Elaine Pearson, HRW’s Asia director.

The provisions it objects to

Detention. The Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security could issue detention orders of two months at a time for up to a year, with the magistrate given no discretion to set the order aside. Bail would lie only with the High Court, and only in exceptional circumstances for those accused of a serious crime.

Police confessions. The bill would make confessions to police admissible in court. HRW notes this is the practice that incentivised torture under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and that the separate counterterrorism bill moved the other way by requiring confessions be made to a magistrate.

Breadth. “Serious crime” is defined as any offence punishable by at least four years’ imprisonment, drawing a wide range of conduct under the law’s extraordinary powers. An “organised criminal group” is defined as three or more people acting in concert.

Criminalising association. Courts could weigh whether someone belongs to such a group on the basis of meetings with known members, style of dress, hand signs, language or tattoos, association with members, and habitually visiting premises the group uses. HRW says this risks punishing association rather than conduct.

Surveillance. Police would get broad interception, device-extraction and data-access powers. Some subscriber, call and cell-tower data could be obtained without a court order.

HRW says the government does not appear to have consulted while drafting the bill, and should withdraw it and run an open consultation. It notes the National People’s Power alliance pledged in its 2024 manifesto to abolish “oppressive” laws and repeal the PTA.

Context

This is the latest in a sustained run of objections to the two bills. The Human Rights Commission called for the organised crimes bill to be withdrawn on 23 October, Amnesty International did the same on 27 October, and the Bar Association has sought the withdrawal of both bills. Twenty-two petitions against the terrorism bill are before the Supreme Court.

On the detention period, this archive has already recorded that HRW’s “up to a year” figure and the longer periods cited elsewhere are not in conflict: clause 21 allows up to a year of executive detention in two-month blocks, and clause 23 allows up to a further year on remand before indictment.

A note on sourcing

Daily Mirror’s report is a substantially verbatim republication of the Human Rights Watch news release, not independent reporting of it. The two are one document rather than two accounts, and this article treats them as a single source.

Update, 29 October: This article originally recorded that no other verified Sri Lankan newsroom had filed on the statement. That was accurate when published at 10.09 a.m. Colombo time. Hiru News filed its own Sinhala report at 1.07 p.m., three hours later, and is now cited above.

Hiru’s account matches on every material point — the Elaine Pearson quote on police confessions and torture, the 6 October terrorism bill and 20 October organised crimes bill, the absence of adequate judicial oversight, and the contradiction with the National People’s Power’s 2024 manifesto pledge to repeal the PTA and other “oppressive” laws. It adds no facts the release does not carry, but it is an independent newsroom’s decision to report the statement, which the republication above was not.

Not reported

Neither the release nor Daily Mirror’s version carries a government response, and neither says when the bill is scheduled for debate or whether the government intends to amend it. HRW does not say whether it has made formal submissions to the Supreme Court or to the relevant parliamentary committee.