Several Special Determination petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Prevention of Organised Crime Bill, arguing that it would undermine judicial independence, deny suspects a fair trial and create conditions conducive to torture.

Among the petitioners is the Law and Society Trust (LST), which asks the court to determine that the Bill as a whole — or several of its provisions — is inconsistent with the Constitution, and therefore requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament and approval at a referendum to become law, the Daily Mirror reported.

The Bill was published as a Gazette Supplement on 6 October and tabled in Parliament on 20 October. It is intended to give effect to the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime and to support cooperation in investigating and prosecuting serious offences.

The core objection: a term the Bill does not define

LST argues the Bill introduces uncertainty by failing to define “organised crime” while granting police extensive powers of arrest, search and questioning.

It points to a gap between two clauses. Clause 3 limits the law to serious crimes committed by members of organised criminal groups — but Clause 17 lets any police officer arrest any person on reasonable suspicion of a serious crime, regardless of whether that person belongs to such a group. On the petitioners’ reading, the limiting clause does not in practice limit anything.

Magistrates required to give effect to executive orders

The petition contends the Bill would transfer judicial power to the executive. Under Clause 20, a magistrate must give effect to a detention order issued by the executive, or remand the suspect if no such order is produced, and loses the power to grant bail or to question the grounds of arrest when a suspect first appears.

Clause 32(2) compounds this: an officer producing a suspect for the first time is not required to furnish a B report to court — the document that would ordinarily tell a magistrate the circumstances of the arrest.

Clauses 46 to 50 are said to remove Evidence Ordinance safeguards, including restrictions on the admissibility of confessions and statements made by suspects.

Detention periods, and a figure to read carefully

LST states the Bill permits detention at police stations for up to one year, for up to six months where a person is already in remand or prison custody, or until the conclusion of a trial. Combined with the proposed admissibility of confessions, it argues, prolonged police detention could create conditions conducive to torture, contrary to Article 11 of the Constitution.

Readers should note these are the petitioners’ characterisations of clauses cited in their own submissions. This desk’s earlier clause-level reporting set out the detention architecture differently — executive detention in two-month blocks under one clause, with a further period on remand before indictment under another. The figures quoted by different parties are not necessarily in conflict; they count different things. The Supreme Court is being asked to resolve exactly this.

Objections were also raised to Clause 65, said to override attorney-client confidentiality by requiring disclosure of information on serious crimes notwithstanding professional duties — which, the petition argues, could expose defence lawyers to criminal liability and discourage suspects from seeking representation. Clauses 21, 22, 25 and 27 on detention powers and provisions on restriction orders, which the petition says could limit movement and communication indefinitely through repeated extensions, are also challenged.

Counsel Ermiza Tegal, with Thahira Cader, Mark Schubert, Vihangi Liyanagamage, Nisara Wickramasinghe, Oshadhi Ganisha Hapuarachchi and Alagaratnam Jinoshan, instructed by Tharmarajah Tharmaja, appeared for the petitioner.

Context

The Bill has drawn sustained objection since it was gazetted. The Human Rights Commission called for its withdrawal, the Bar Association raised concerns alongside the PSTA Bill, and Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and PAFFREL have each objected in turn. Twenty-two petitions were separately filed against the companion PSTA Bill.

Not reported

The filing does not state how many petitions have been lodged against this Bill, who the other petitioners are, when the Supreme Court will take them up, or whether the Attorney General has responded. No other verified newsroom had carried the petitions at the time of writing; the report is by the Daily Mirror’s legal correspondent Lakmal Sooriyagoda. The copy carries a “Colombo, Oct 30” dateline while the page’s structured data gives a publication time of 9.07 a.m. on 31 October; the later stamp is used here.