The People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) has written to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake asking him to reconsider the two bills meant to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act and to tackle organised crime, warning that national security measures must not come at the cost of fundamental rights.
In a letter dated 30 October 2026, PAFFREL Executive Director Rohana Hettiarachchi welcomed the Government’s commitment to repeal the PTA but said the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill and Prevention of Organised Crime Bill contain provisions that could threaten civil liberties, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and freedom of association. The letter recalls the National People’s Power manifesto pledge to repeal oppressive laws, and points to Sri Lanka’s obligations under the EU’s GSP+ scheme and the UN human rights benchmarks set in 2021.
On the terrorism bill, PAFFREL argues the broad definition of terrorism could pull peaceful protests, trade union activity and humanitarian assistance into the scope of terrorist offences, particularly through wording about significant economic harm. It questions vague terms such as “obstruction” and “interference”; a provision criminalising failure to provide information without distinguishing deliberate withholding from other circumstances; and a definition of terrorist publications broad enough to catch calls for peaceful public gatherings.
The letter also challenges the enforcement powers: warrantless arrest powers for the armed forces and Coast Guard, removing the senior police oversight that previously applied; detention orders of up to a year issued by the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence; limits on judicial oversight of evidence sent to the Government Analyst; ministerial control over appointments to the detention review committee; and powers to declare any location a prohibited place and to restrict a person’s movement and communications for up to three months.
On the organised crime bill, PAFFREL warns that relatively minor offences — intellectual property violations, excise offences and forestry breaches — could be classed as serious organised crime, that executive detention of up to a year is again available, and that admitting confessions made to police as evidence could undermine the right to a fair trial.
PAFFREL joins a widening line of objectors. The UN human rights office and Amnesty International pressed for a rewrite on 22 October, the Joint Opposition raised media-freedom concerns on 28 October, and on 29 October Human Rights Watch and the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce weighed in on detention powers and the GSP+ risk respectively.
Note on sourcing: The Daily Mirror’s account numbers the contested provisions as “Articles” 3, 8, 10, 15, 19, 26, 39, 49 and 61; earlier reporting on the same two bills referred to them as clauses. No other verified newsroom had published the letter at the time of writing, and the letter itself has not been published in full.
