By The Pulseline News Desk
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) under the United Nations human rights framework calls for a narrower definition of terrorism, stronger judicial oversight of detention and tighter controls on executive and military powers under Sri Lanka’s proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTA), as concerns persist over safeguards against arbitrary arrests and restrictions on fundamental freedoms.
The recommendations call for substantial revisions to the proposed legislation to ensure compliance with international human rights standards, including stronger protections for freedom of expression, peaceful protest, legal representation and the rights of people detained under counter-terrorism powers.
The latest version of the PSTA Bill was gazetted on 22 September 2026 as part of the Government’s efforts to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), which has faced longstanding criticism over its detention provisions and alleged human rights violations.
The recommendations address 14 priority areas, ranging from the definition of terrorism and police powers to detention safeguards, military accountability, executive authority and remedies for human rights violations.
Definition of terrorism remains a key concern
A central recommendation is to redefine terrorism narrowly and precisely to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
The proposed definition should be aligned with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566, the model definition proposed by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights while countering terrorism, and the guidance issued by the OHCHR.
Terrorist acts should be confined to intentional violent conduct resulting in death, serious bodily injury or hostage-taking, undertaken with the intention of provoking terror among the public or compelling a government or international organisation to act or refrain from acting.
The recommendations also call for ambiguous terms in the Bill, including “directly or indirectly”, “useful”, “knowingly” and “unduly compelling”, to be removed or precisely defined.
Speech-related offences should require specific terrorist intent and a real and objective risk that a terrorist act will be committed.
The definition of confidential information should also be narrowed, with explicit protection for journalistic sources, legal professional privilege and documentation used for human rights monitoring.
Any restriction on freedom of expression must comply with Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with the Rabat Plan of Action providing additional guidance.
The recommendations further call for explicit safeguards against treating advocacy, peaceful protest, dissent, industrial action and impartial humanitarian or medical activities as terrorism.
Tighter controls on arrests and searches
The recommendations propose stronger controls over police powers to arrest individuals, enter and search premises, and seize property under the Bill.
Senior-level police authorisation, written reasons or prompt supervisory review should be required when such coercive powers are exercised.
They also call for the removal of broad powers granted to the armed forces to stop and question individuals, enter and search premises or land, and arrest and detain people.
Any military involvement in law enforcement should be governed by clearly defined accountability arrangements, civilian oversight and unambiguous chains of command.
The recommendations state that military personnel exercising police powers should operate under civilian authority and remain subject to ordinary criminal jurisdiction.
All arrests and detentions should comply with ordinary criminal law standards and be subject to immediate judicial scrutiny from the outset.
Magistrates should scrutinise detention orders
The proposed legislation’s detention provisions are another major focus of the recommendations.
All suspects detained under the Bill, regardless of the authority responsible for their arrest, should be produced before a magistrate as soon as possible and ordinarily within 24 hours.
Magistrates should have the authority to assess the legality, necessity and proportionality of arrests and detention orders, and to order release, bail or alternative measures to pretrial detention.
The recommendations also call for private and confidential access to legal counsel, together with stronger independent oversight of detention facilities.
Magistrates and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka should be able to conduct private, confidential and unmonitored interviews with detainees.
A central detainee database should be promptly accessible to detainees, their families, lawyers and oversight bodies.
The recommendations also call for meaningful family contact, prompt notification of transfers and access to information about the location of detention.
Qualified and independent interpretation and translation services should be available from arrest through trial, appeal and review proceedings.
Stronger safeguards against torture
The recommendations call for the Bill to explicitly incorporate the absolute prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and enforced disappearance.
They also propose enforceable consequences and remedies for failures to record questioning, notify relevant authorities, provide legal representation or permit independent oversight.
Unannounced detention visits and stronger follow-up powers should be introduced to help prevent torture and other forms of ill-treatment.
The Bill should also include an interpretive provision requiring all its provisions to be applied consistently with the international human rights treaties binding on Sri Lanka.
Individuals subjected to wrongful arrest, detention or other human rights violations under the proposed law should have access to prompt and effective remedies, including adequate compensation and redress.
Limits on presidential and executive powers
The recommendations call for a comprehensive redrafting of provisions governing executive and public order powers.
Such powers should be subject to clearly defined legal thresholds, prior judicial authorisation, effective appeal and review mechanisms, and reasonable sunset clauses.
These safeguards are intended to prevent proscription and restriction orders from remaining in force indefinitely.
Executive measures should be accessible, transparent and clearly articulated in law, and based on individualised risk assessments rather than broad or collective assumptions.
The recommendations specifically call for Section 69, which concerns presidential directions, to be restricted to administrative matters.
Such directions should be published and subject to effective and independent oversight. They should not be permitted to weaken rights or safeguards established by law.
Prosecution suspension and information sharing
The recommendations also propose amendments to Sections 52 and 53, which concern the suspension or deferment of prosecutions.
The revised provisions should provide for independent judicial review and ensure that any decision made by a suspect in this regard is fully voluntary.
Safeguards against self-incrimination and protections for the presumption of innocence should also be strengthened.
The period for which a prosecution may be suspended or deferred should be considerably shortened to prevent suspects and their families from facing prolonged legal uncertainty.
Meanwhile, any exchange of information or data obtained through joint investigations under Section 43(4), including with foreign states, should comply fully with international human rights law.
Review of pending cases
The recommendations call for transitional arrangements requiring every pending detention, prosecution, proscription and restriction to be reviewed when the new legislation takes effect.
Each case should be assessed against the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, as well as fair-trial guarantees.
Where these standards are not met, appropriate action should follow, including the discontinuance of proceedings, release from detention and access to effective remedies.
The proposed safeguards collectively seek to ensure that counter-terrorism powers are exercised within a clearly defined legal framework, subject to independent judicial scrutiny and effective accountability.
The central challenge for Sri Lanka’s proposed legislation is to ensure that efforts to address terrorism do not undermine fundamental rights, due process and the safeguards necessary to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory use of state power.
Leave a comment