New Anti-Terrorism Legislation Raises Fears Over Civil Liberties, Says Speaker

The speaker said the government had pledged in its election manifesto to abolish the PTA and promote democratic governance, but argued that the current direction did not reflect those commitments.

Referring to Sri Lanka’s history of political violence and conflict, including the events of 1971, the 1983 conflict, the JVP insurrection of 1987–1989 and the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, the speaker said the country had experienced serious consequences from violence and emergency security measures.

The speaker noted that the PTA, originally introduced as a temporary measure during J.R. Jayewardene’s administration, had remained in force for decades. The speaker also recounted personal experiences of alleged abduction and detention, claiming to have been blindfolded for three months and later released to sit a university examination.

Warning against the misuse of state power, the speaker argued that laws should protect citizens rather than political leaders. The proposed legislation, the speaker said, could restrict freedoms of assembly and expression, including the ability to engage in traditional practices such as vas kavi and seth kavi.

The speaker also called on police officers to remember that governments are not permanent and that law enforcement should uphold citizens’ rights. The speaker said reforms to the legal system were necessary but should not come at the cost of further violence or bloodshed.

During the question-and-answer session, the speaker responded to questions about past political decisions, alleged delays in law enforcement, religious practices and the treatment of Buddhist clergy. The speaker also criticised the use of media to debate matters relating to monastic discipline.

The briefing included warnings about the possibility of future public unrest if concerns over rights and governance were not addressed.

The remarks reflected the speaker’s criticisms and personal recollections. The exact provisions of the proposed legislation, the government’s response and the legal status of the bill were not established in the information provided for this report.