The National Christian Council of Sri Lanka has issued a statement raising concerns over three pieces of proposed legislation — the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the Non-Governmental Organisations (Registration and Supervision) Bill — arguing that together they form “a mutually reinforcing architecture of suppression,” the Daily FT reported.
The council said the rule of law must remain central to efforts to maintain public security and respond to corruption.
The five objections
The statement sets out five grounds.
Overbroad definitions. The council says the terrorism Bill shifts focus from protecting civilians to protecting state institutions against dissent, and that defining terrorism and serious crime through criteria such as “unduly compelling a Government” — or by reference to dress, tattoos and associations — risks criminalising identity and peaceful protest.
Detention without judicial oversight. Detention powers of up to 12 months are vested in executive officials such as the Defence Secretary or senior police rather than judicial officers, the council says, with magistrates stripped of discretion and compelled to give effect to executive orders without granting bail. It alleges that bail safeguards agreed by advisory committees were removed from the tabled text, and that suspects face cumulative custody of up to three years.
Military powers and surveillance. The terrorism Bill extends warrantless arrest powers to the armed forces and coast guard while restricting access to legal counsel through subordinate circulars, the statement says. The organised crime Bill, separately, would permit digital surveillance, device decryption and extraction of subscriber data without court orders.
The NGO Bill. It requires prior authorisation, penalises unregistered operation with fines of up to Rs. 1 million, allows warrantless property inspections and requires non-governmental organisations to align with government policy — which the council says crosses from regulation into control. It disputes the government’s position that the measures are required by the Financial Action Task Force, saying UN experts and research establish that blanket restrictions contradict FATF Recommendation 8’s risk-based approach.
Process. The council says the Bills were drafted without transparent, inclusive consultation with stakeholders and civil society, including religious bodies.
Context
The NCCSL joins a long line of objectors. Petitions against the Organised Crime Prevention Bill reached the Supreme Court at the end of October, and the Bar Association, the Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have each called for the Bills’ withdrawal. Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith separately ordered a church study of the PSTA Bill — the NCCSL is a distinct, ecumenical body. UN special rapporteurs have also written to Parliament about the organised crime Bill.
Not reported
The characterisations above are the council’s. The filing reproduces its statement and carries no government response, no clause-by-clause verification of the detention or bail claims, and no comment from the Justice Ministry or the Attorney General’s Department. It does not name the advisory committees said to have agreed the removed bail safeguards, or date when the removal occurred.
On sourcing: this report rests on a single verified source, and that source reproduces an advocacy statement rather than independent reporting — the body is prefaced “The statement follows.” It should be read as one party’s account of the Bills’ contents, not as a confirmed description of them.
