By Chanakya
Nearly half a century after its introduction, Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) remains one of the country’s most controversial laws. Enacted in 1979 as a temporary measure during a period of escalating political violence, the PTA has long outlived its original justification. Successive governments have promised reform, amendment, or outright repeal. Yet in 2026, Sri Lanka continues to grapple with the same question that has haunted the country for decades: why does a law so widely condemned for enabling abuse remain on the statute books?
The PTA’s critics have never argued that terrorism should go unpunished. Rather, they contend that the law grants extraordinary powers with insufficient safeguards. Under its provisions, individuals can be detained for extended periods with limited judicial oversight, while confessions made to police officers have historically been admissible as evidence. Human rights organisations, legal experts, and international bodies have repeatedly warned that these powers create conditions ripe for abuse.
The connection between the PTA and allegations of torture is at the heart of the debate. For years, domestic and international investigations have documented claims that detainees held under the Act were subjected to torture, coercion, and ill-treatment during interrogation. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has described the PTA as facilitating prolonged arbitrary detention and creating conditions that allow confessions to be extracted through abuse. A study by Sri Lanka’s own Human Rights Commission (HRCSL) found that a significant majority of PTA detainees reported being tortured following arrest.
Expanding consequences
The consequences, however, extend beyond individual cases. The law has become synonymous with impunity. Allegations of torture are often difficult to investigate when detention occurs in isolated conditions and when legal access is restricted. As a result, the PTA has been criticised not merely for isolated instances of abuse but for fostering a system in which abuse can occur without adequate accountability. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has continued to raise concerns about the “routine use of torture and other forms of ill-treatment” alongside the continued application of the Act.
The PTA’s impact has also fallen disproportionately on minority communities. During and after the civil war, the law was used extensively against Tamils suspected of links to the LTTE. Following the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, Muslims increasingly found themselves subjected to PTA arrests and investigations. Critics argue that the law has evolved from a counterterrorism tool into a mechanism that can be deployed against vulnerable communities, activists, journalists, and political dissenters.
What makes the continued existence of the PTA particularly contentious is the repeated cycle of promises and delays. Multiple administrations have pledged repeal. The current Janatha Vimukhti Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) government came to power amid renewed commitments to abolish the law and replace it with legislation aligned with international human rights standards. Yet progress has been slow. While consultations and draft replacement legislation have been proposed, human rights advocates warn that some replacement bills risk preserving many of the PTA’s most problematic features under a different name.
This delay has real consequences. Every year that repeal is postponed is another year in which individuals can be detained under powers that many legal experts consider fundamentally incompatible with democratic norms. International bodies, including the United Nations and HRCSL, have continued to call for repeal or at least a moratorium on the law’s use while reforms are finalised.
Addressing security threats
Supporters of retaining the PTA argue that Sri Lanka still faces legitimate security threats and requires robust counterterrorism legislation. That concern should not be dismissed. Every state has a duty to protect its citizens from violence and extremism. However, the central issue is not whether counterterrorism laws should exist, but whether they should permit detention without meaningful oversight and create conditions associated with torture and coercion. Effective security and respect for fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive objectives.
The debate over the PTA has become a test of Sri Lanka’s broader commitment to the rule of law. Repealing the Act would not erase decades of allegations or heal the wounds of those who claim to have suffered under it. But it would represent a significant step toward addressing a longstanding source of mistrust between citizens and the state.
The question is no longer whether the PTA is controversial. That debate was settled years ago. The real question is whether Sri Lanka’s political leaders will finally act on promises repeatedly made to voters, victims, and the international community. Until they do, the shadow of the PTA, and the allegations of abuse and torture associated with it, will continue to hang over the country’s democratic aspirations.
Persisting concerns
The persistence of these concerns was recently highlighted by former President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and first Chairman of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), Saliya Pieris, PC. In a public statement, Pieris noted that lawyers and human rights advocates had for decades condemned the misuse of laws such as the PTA, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act, and Emergency Regulations by successive governments.
According to Pieris, these laws have repeatedly been used to keep individuals in custody for prolonged and unnecessary periods, contributing to a culture of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in police stations and prisons. His remarks go to the heart of the criticism directed at the PTA: that extraordinary detention powers, when exercised with limited judicial oversight, create an environment in which abuse can flourish.
Pieris argued that decisions relating to detention should not be left to executive officials but should be determined by independent judges acting according to law. “That is why detention in custody must be left to be decided by judges acting according to law rather than executive functionaries, whether they be Presidents, Ministers, Secretaries or Police Officers,” he stated. The principle he articulated is fundamental to any democratic legal system, the deprivation of liberty should be subject to judicial scrutiny, not political discretion.
Perhaps most strikingly, Pieris observed the cyclical nature of Sri Lankan politics, noting that some who once defended or implemented these laws now find themselves subjected to the same legal provisions. Equally, some who previously campaigned for their repeal later relied upon and enforced them after assuming positions of authority. His comments expose a recurring pattern in which opposition to draconian legislation often fades once political power is acquired.
Yet Pieris’ central argument was not about politics but about principle. Constitutional rights and legal protections, he maintained, must apply equally to everyone, regardless of the allegations against them or their political affiliations. “Every person is entitled to human dignity, the protection of the law and the freedoms guaranteed by Article 11 of the Constitution,” he said. In the debate over the PTA, this remains the essential question: whether Sri Lanka’s commitment to human rights is truly universal, or whether it depends on who happens to be in the dock.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication.
Leave a comment