CPA warns of sweeping definitions, weak safeguards and risks to fundamental rights under proposed law
By The Pulseline News Desk
Sri Lanka’s newly gazetted Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill has raised concerns over the breadth of powers it would grant law enforcement authorities, including permitting the Secretary to the Ministry in charge of the Police to order the detention of suspects for up to one year.
The proposed legislation introduces broad definitions of an “organised criminal group” and a “serious crime”, potentially bringing a wide range of offences under a special legal framework carrying prison sentences of up to 20 years.
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has criticised the Bill as containing vague and sweeping provisions with inadequate safeguards, warning that it could undermine protections available under ordinary criminal law and increase the risk of human rights violations.
The legislation comes amid wider scrutiny of the Government’s proposed security laws, particularly the balance between strengthening the State’s ability to combat serious crime and safeguarding fundamental rights.
Broad definitions of organised crime
Under the Bill, an “organised criminal group” is defined as a structured group of three or more people that exists over a period of time and acts together to commit one or more serious crimes to obtain a financial or other material benefit, directly or indirectly.
The proposed law defines a “structured group” as one that is not randomly formed for the immediate commission of a serious crime. However, it does not require formally defined roles for members, continuity of membership or a developed organisational structure.
The broad definition could allow authorities to investigate groups that do not operate through conventional criminal organisations with established hierarchies or clearly assigned roles.
Clause 3 of the Bill defines a “serious crime” as any offence punishable by imprisonment for four years or more.
The accompanying schedule incorporates offences under numerous existing laws, including the Antiquities Ordinance, the Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act, the Chemical Weapons Convention Act, the Computer Crime Act, the Excise Ordinance, the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act, the Intellectual Property Act and the Penal Code.
This wide coverage means the proposed framework would extend beyond offences traditionally associated with organised criminal networks, including drug trafficking and violent crime, to a range of other offences carrying the specified minimum potential punishment.
Prison terms of up to 20 years
The Bill proposes substantial penalties for those convicted by a High Court of being members of an organised criminal group for the purpose of committing a serious crime.
A conviction could result in imprisonment for between five and 20 years, together with a fine of up to Rs. 1 million.
The potential severity of these penalties makes the interpretation of the Bill’s definitions and the evidence used to establish membership particularly significant.
Under the proposed provisions, courts may consider several factors when determining whether a person belongs to an organised criminal group.
These include participation in physical or virtual meetings with known members, identification as a member by current or former members, and the adoption of clothing styles, hand signs, language or tattoos associated with the group.
Association with known members is also listed as a factor courts may consider.
While such indicators could assist investigations into groups that use informal structures or coded forms of communication, their application raises questions about how authorities would distinguish meaningful participation in criminal activity from social contact, personal expression or other conduct that does not independently establish criminal involvement.
The provisions do not mean that any one of these factors automatically establishes guilt. Nevertheless, their significance would depend on how the law is interpreted and applied alongside the evidence in each case.
Secretary empowered to order detention
One of the Bill’s most consequential provisions would allow the Secretary to the Ministry in charge of the Police to authorise the detention of a suspect for two months at a time, with extensions permitted up to a maximum of one year.
The Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security currently holds that administrative position.
The provision would place significant detention authority within the executive branch, rather than requiring every extension of detention to be authorised through the ordinary judicial process.
Such extended detention powers raise questions about access to judicial oversight, the ability of suspects to challenge the grounds for their detention and the safeguards available against arbitrary detention and ill-treatment.
The distinction between detention for investigative purposes and imprisonment following a conviction is particularly important. A detention order does not itself establish guilt, while a person may remain in custody for a prolonged period before the criminal allegations are finally determined.
The Bill’s proposed framework therefore places considerable importance on the safeguards governing the issuance and renewal of detention orders.
CPA warns of threat to fundamental rights
In a statement, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has criticised the proposed legislation, arguing that its language was too broad and its safeguards inadequate.
The CPA has described the Bill as being “framed in broad, vague and sweeping language and contains few, if any, meaningful safeguards.”
It has further warned that the legislation “rolls back hard-won protections in the ordinary criminal law” and “creates a parallel regime of arrest and detention that has the potential to entrench torture and severely curtail fundamental rights.”
The organisation’s concerns centre on the combined effect of the broad definitions, the extensive range of offences covered and the power to authorise prolonged detention.
Taken together, these provisions could give authorities considerable discretion in determining which individuals fall within the scope of the proposed law and how they may be investigated and detained.
The CPA’s warning also raises a broader question about whether the existing criminal justice framework can adequately address organised crime without creating exceptional procedures that weaken established legal protections.
Scope of the law under scrutiny
The Bill’s definition of organised criminal groups does not require a formal hierarchy, fixed membership or clearly defined internal roles. Its definition of serious crime also draws on a lengthy schedule of offences contained in other legislation.
This combination gives the proposed law a potentially extensive reach.
The inclusion of factors such as association with known members, clothing, language and tattoos is also likely to place emphasis on how investigators interpret a person’s connections and behaviour when building a case.
For the legislation to operate consistently with fundamental rights, the distinction between evidence of participation in criminal activity and circumstantial indicators of association would be critical.
Similarly, the proposed detention powers would require close scrutiny of the procedures for authorisation, extensions and judicial review, particularly where a suspect has not been convicted of an offence.
Balancing enforcement with legal safeguards
The Government’s stated legislative objective is to strengthen the legal framework for combating organised crime. However, the Bill’s provisions have opened a debate over how far the State should be permitted to go in exercising its investigative and detention powers.
The challenge is to ensure that authorities can effectively investigate complex criminal networks while preserving due process, judicial oversight and protection against arbitrary detention.
The CPA’s objections place the proposed law within a wider debate over security legislation in Sri Lanka, where the scope of executive powers and the adequacy of safeguards have repeatedly come under scrutiny.
As the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill moves towards parliamentary consideration, its definitions, detention provisions and mechanisms for protecting fundamental rights are likely to be central to the debate over whether the proposed framework can combat organised crime without weakening the legal protections available to the public.
Leave a comment