From PTA to PSTB: Is Sri Lanka only replacing the name?

COLOMBO – Sri Lanka’s decades-long engagement with extraordinary security legislation has reached a pivotal juncture, with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government deciding to do away with the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) enacted in 1979 and replace it with the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTB), which was tabled in Parliament.

An exhaustive legal analysis by Amnesty International, alongside scrutiny from civil society and legal experts, suggests that rather than dismantling a legacy of state abuse, the new legislation threatens to institutionalize arbitrary executive powers under a modernized statutory veneer.

For domestic citizens, foreign observers, human rights defenders, and international investors, the bill presents far-reaching implications for human rights, judicial independence, and Sri Lanka’s broader economic stability, analysts say.

To understand the concerns surrounding the new bill, one must examine the legacy of the law it aims to replace.

Enacted in 1979 as a temporary emergency measure during the onset of civil unrest, the PTA was permanently codified in 1982 and became a cornerstone of Sri Lanka’s security architecture for over four decades.

Historically, the PTA served as a primary mechanism for systemic state abuse, arbitrary arrest, and human rights violations.

The law was disproportionately deployed against ethnic minorities, political dissidents, journalists, trade unionists, and peaceful protesters, analysts say.

Under the PTA, individuals could be detained for up to 18 months under administrative Detention Orders issued by the Minister of Defence without formal charges or meaningful judicial review.

The act uniquely rendered confessions made to senior police officers admissible in court, creating structural incentives for torture, coerced statements, and extended solitary confinement.

By shielding security personnel with broad immunity clauses and denying suspects prompt access to legal counsel or bail, the PTA enabled state actors to operate with near-total impunity, leaving victims without legal redress.

Despite repeated pledges by successive administrations and explicit commitments made to international bodies, the PTA remained actively used, with human rights data confirming dozens of detentions through 2025 and 2026.

The latest Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill introduces minor modifications compared to earlier legislative iterations, such as late-2025 proposals.

Most notably, the updated draft incorporates judicial oversight over executive decisions to proscribe organizations and removes vague clauses that previously criminalized acts merely intended to infringe on national sovereignty.

However, as Amnesty International highlights, the new bill retains significant grey areas and structural deficiencies that fall far short of international human rights standards.

“Any attempt to revise a counterterror law which has time and time again been weaponized by the authorities against dissent, government critics, and minorities must be given the utmost scrutiny,” said Smriti Singh, Amnesty International’s South Asia Director.

“The new bill must break with this legacy of abuse, not give the authorities new tools to silence dissent.”

Serious Human Rights Concerns

“Sri Lanka’s history of abusing such legislation makes robust, enforceable safeguards essential, and these remain inadequately addressed in the bill, sparking serious human rights concerns.”

While narrower than earlier drafts, the definition of terrorism in the PS-TB remains dangerously elastic.

The bill does not explicitly exclude peaceful protests, trade union actions, civic advocacy, or medical and humanitarian assistance from being classified as terror offences.

Instead, it merely notes that such activities are not by themselves sufficient to establish an offence, a qualification that leaves substantial room for subjective interpretation and potential criminalization of civil dissent.

Furthermore, the bill penalizes acts causing a mere likelihood of substantial economic loss, setting a low threshold that could potentially classify mass strikes or blockades as acts of terror.

“Allowing a person to be detained for up to a year before being charged, with the prospect of a further year in pretrial detention, raises grave concerns about arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial. No one should have to spend years in detention while the state delays bringing a case to trial,” said Smriti Singh.

“We urge Sri Lanka’s parliament to withdraw this bill and reform the law in line with international human rights law and standards. Until this is done, the PTA should not be misused further.”

In addition to broad definitions, the procedural safeguards within the proposed law remain deeply compromised.

The bill permits administrative detention for up to one year without formal charges, alongside the possibility of an additional year in pre-trial detention.

A cumulative two-year period of pre-trial deprivation of liberty severely undermines the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial within a reasonable timeframe, and protection against arbitrary detention.

Furthermore, although the bill establishes a review committee to examine the legality of Detention Orders, its members are appointed directly by the Minister of Defence, meaning an executive-appointed panel cannot substitute for independent, impartial judicial review within the regular criminal justice system.

Wide Police Powers

The draft also extends police powers, including search, arrest, and seizure authority, to the armed forces and coast guard, while empowering the Attorney General, with High Court approval, to suspend or defer prosecutions for up to twenty years in exchange for suspect concessions, leaving individuals exposed to prosecution for decades.

The passage of the PS-TB in its current form carries profound risks across political, social, and economic spheres.

For the domestic public and civil society, analysts say, the law risks creating a chilling effect on democratic expression by failing to explicitly protect industrial action and civic advocacy, exposing citizens and non-governmental organizations to the perpetual threat of weaponized legal proceedings whenever opposing government policies.

For foreign nationals, researchers, and tourists, overbroad security provisions that grant sweeping arrest powers to police and allow extended detention without charge heighten jurisdictional risks during sensitive political climate shifts.

Foreign investors and international trade partners must consider the institutional stability and predictable rule of law necessary for long-term commitment.

A national security framework that permits executive overreach undermines corporate governance standards and heightened environmental, social, and governance (ESG) compliance.

Crucially, failing to align counterterrorism legislation with international human rights benchmarks jeopardizes Sri Lanka’s access to vital export preferences, such as the European Union’s GSP+ tariff scheme, which hinges on compliance with core international conventions.

Replacing the PTA was meant to mark Sri Lanka’s definitive break with an era of state-sanctioned impunity.

However, as the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill moves through constitutional review at the Supreme Court and toward parliamentary debate, international human rights organizations and legal experts agree that the proposed statute merely re-packages executive power.

To build a secure, stable, and economically prosperous society, Sri Lanka requires a counterterrorism framework strictly aligned with UN standards, one that clearly defines terror offences, preserves judicial oversight, protects peaceful dissent, and ensures equal protection under the law for all.

-economynext.com