The Sri Lankan government must translate its pre-election rhetoric into reality, and end the Prevention of Terrorism Act
by The Hindu, Chennai, April 30, 2025
The Prevention of Terrorism Act was enacted in 1979, under President J. R. Jayawardene, primarily to crush the emerging armed struggle of Tamil youth. [from The Hindu article on the PTA of October 27, 2016, reproduced below]
‘The law still remains, with some cosmetic amendments’ : M.A. Sumanthiran is a President’s Counsel practising at Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court, a former Member of Parliament of Jaffna, and the General Secretary of the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi
If there is one law in Sri Lanka that has received constant attention over the last half century in this regard, it is the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) passed in 1979, during the presidency of J.R. Jayawardene. It was modelled on South African legislation from the Apartheid era and British laws against Irish militancy, and replaced another law titled Proscribing of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and Other Similar Organizations Law of 1978.
The intention was very clear: to eradicate the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and other organisations that sought to create a separate Tamil state on the island. Originally envisaged as a temporary provisions law for a period of three years, it became a permanent fixture in Sri Lanka’s statute books in 1982.
Applied with impunity
The provisions of this law include administrative detention for long periods without judicial oversight; confessions made to police officers being admissible evidence, and failure to give information to the police being made an offence. Needless to say, these provisions are abused widely, with obvious impunity. Impunity, because even in cases where it was established that false and fabricated evidence was presented to court, law enforcement authorities faced no consequence. The cases merely failed, but errant police officers who fabricated evidence and worse, who tortured to elicit confessions, went scot-free.
There was yet another outcome, which was actually a security nightmare. When police officers found an easy way to “solve terrorist crimes”, they did not investigate to find the actual culprits. Confessions were obtained from even those who were not actually involved in the offence. They were convicted while the real culprits remained at large. We have also seen several cases where innocent persons have been charged for ‘not giving information’ to the police. All you require is a forced confession from them to that effect and they would be sentenced.
For decades now, rights defenders in Sri Lanka have fiercely opposed the PTA. Lawyers have highlighted the availability of provisions in ordinary law to deal with serious threats and offences to the country’s peace and security. Many countries committed to democracy have raised concerns over the piece of legislation and its impact on human rights and democratic freedoms. The European Union suspended the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)+ preferential status for Sri Lanka in 2010 on account of it not being repealed as promised.
As is common with draconian legislation anywhere, the PTA, too, is also used selectively against the government’s political opponents, dissidents, and minority groups. Many human rights activists and journalists have been targeted. In 2009, well-known journalist J.S. Tissainayagam was sentenced to 20 years in prison for publishing an article in an obscure journal accusing the government of starving the Tamil population during the war. (He was pardoned and released subsequently after intense international pressure.) The charge against him was that the article could have caused communal disharmony.
A continuance with minor amendments
Successive governments in Colombo have promised to repeal the PTA — at least after the end of the war in 2009 — but the law still remains, with some cosmetic amendments. There was a moratorium announced on its use, but even a few weeks ago, arrests were made under this law.
Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s ruling National People’s Power (NPP) government has repeatedly vowed to repeal the PTA, both during its election campaign and since coming to power. Its pledge was taken more seriously, given that its own party, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (chief political constituent of the NPP) suffered immensely around its second armed uprising in 1987-1990. Although the PTA was initially brought to suppress Tamil militants, the state did not hesitate to use it against the Sinhalese, especially JVP cadre challenging it. More recently, the law has been used to target Muslims after the Easter Sunday Attacks in 2019.
Campaign for a repeal
In 2021, this writer led an island-wide signature campaign to repeal the PTA, along with colleagues in Parliament and rights activists. It was reassuring to see people from all ethnic communities supporting the call to repeal the piece of legislation. NPP members too participated in all districts, emphatically backing the call for its repeal. Yet, when it has fallen into its own hands to repeal it fully, the NPP too appears reluctant, perhaps because the security sector that has (ab)used the legislation for so long is not willing to part with it.
Apart from constituting a committee to look into the possible repeal of the PTA, the government is yet to take any significant step towards it.
While in the opposition, the NPP steadfastly refused to join any discussion on replacing this law with another ‘humanitarian law’ on the basis that the PTA must be repealed in toto. But now in the seat of power, it too has started talking about another law that will be drafted to replace the PTA. Previously, two ‘replacement’ drafts were put out by two successive governments. Both drew widespread criticism from human rights activists who contended that they were, in fact, worse than the PTA itself.
We are watching the NPP’s moves on its own promise to repeal this dangerous piece of legislation that, without doubt, must go. Repealing the PTA is the best test one can put to the government to see whether it can translate its pre-poll rhetoric into action.
Even as Sri Lanka drafts a new law to counter terrorism, human rights activists and lawyers fear it might be worse than the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) they want repealed and replaced.
One of the key demands around regime change in Sri Lanka in January 2015 — when former President Mahinda Rajapaksa was unseated —was to repeal the PTA. “After the new government came to power, all of us expected a shift, but now people are disappointed,” says senior human rights lawyer K.S. Ratnavale. The government, he observes, was not willing to dismantle the security apparatus. “They seem unwilling to release political prisoners as well. They are about 160 now.”
The PTA was enacted in 1979, under President J.R. Jayawardene, primarily to crush the emerging armed struggle of Tamil youth protesting the state’s apparently discriminatory policies. Modelled on South Africa’s apartheid-era legislation and laws that the British used against Irish militancy, the PTA became a permanent law in 1982.
Call for repeal
Ever since Sri Lankan armed forces defeated the rebel Tigers in May 2009, bringing a nearly-three decade-long war to an end, civil society groups have been campaigning for repealing the PTA. “The government has eliminated the LTTE. Why do we still need the PTA?” asks Ratnavale, who has appeared for many arrested under the Act.
It was this question and mounting international criticism that pushed the government to consider a new law to replace the PTA with, but the draft of the proposed legislation has only reinforced old fears.
“The preamble itself is worrying,” says Ratnavale, pointing to a provision that calls for protection of other countries and areas from the “scourge of terrorism”. “This goes far beyond the legal framework. It means that it is left to political institutions to eradicate the scourge of terrorism.”
‘Extremely troubling’
An aspect of particular concern, according to lawyers, is with regard to confessions and the right to counsel. Lawyer and columnist Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena says it is extremely troubling that according to the draft policy framework, confessions made to police officers were admissible in the court of law. “This, despite overwhelming evidence that similar latitude under the PTA encouraged the brutal torture of detainees in the north and south, across all ethnicities,” she adds.
According to human rights activist Ruki Fernando, the draft policy and legal framework of the counter-terror law, much like the PTA, have broad definitions that may infringe on free expression and human rights activism. “Like the PTA, it [the new law] can serve as a licence for enforced disappearances and torture, taking away life-saving protections when it is most needed — within the first few hours and days of a person being arrested,” says Fernando, who was in March 2014 arrested under the PTA and released on bail after two days of interrogation.
Commenting on a section regarding “new offences”, Jayawardena says “causing serious harm to the economy and environment” is also swept up within the ambit of what constitutes a terrorist act. “Taken in conjunction with the prohibition on ‘illegally’ or ‘unlawfully’ attempting to change policy, this may infringe constitutional rights and upturn decades of progressive judgements by the Supreme Court.”
Unpleasant memories
For hundreds of families in the north, the PTA evokes unpleasant memories. The Act was used indiscriminately during Sri Lanka’s war years—then the army would round up Tamil-majority villages in the north and arrest large groups of people using the Act, says Ratnavale. Some never returned.
One of the few times that the Sri Lankan state evoked the Act in the south was during the second JVP insurrection from 1987-89, to arrest revolting Sinhalese youth.
Political parties in opposition have periodically demanded the repeal of the PTA. In the post-war context, the Leftist nationalist JVP called for its abolition, to quell foreign interference in Sri Lanka’s domestic matters, and the Tamil National Alliance — the main political grouping representing the island’s northern Tamils — has also voiced concern over “the draconian law” and the apparent influence that the security establishment has on the government.
The draft of the new legislation is to be submitted to an oversight committee on National Security, government sources said. Concerns would also be presented to the committee which, in turn, would submit it to Parliament.
However, lawyers like Ratnavale appear sceptical. “The government anticipates political opposition even to its economic policies. In the guise of tackling terrorism, it might use the [counter terrorism] law to curb all dissent.”