Criticism of the government’s bill to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act is growing. The government, in turn, is ensuring its own MPs are equipped to respond. Last week they were briefed on the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, or PSTB, by a leading Attorney General’s Department lawyer. In a PpowerPpoint presentation he set out the bill’s provisions, then the objections raised by civil liberties activists and NGOs, and explained why, in his view, there was really no cause for concern.
Unredacted understands that the session covered how the bill’s definition of terrorism was derived, and devoted particular attention to the sections on arrests, detention and freedom of expression. These are the sections that critics of the bill find most objectionable.
The MPs also sat through a crash course on the history of anti-terror legislation by their AG’s department tutor. He explained how the current bill evolved from the Counter Terrorism Bill and Anti-Terrorism bills, plus the amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 2022.
Equipping MPs with arguments for TV shows and press conferences may not be the only objective. It isn’t only activists and opposition parties that are slamming the bill. Those within the government’s own ranks are beginning to voice their reservations.
Last week Headline reported that there were substantive differences between the government-appointed drafting committee’s bill and the bill approved by the cabinet. The cabinet version makes it harder to get bail. Vijitha Herath, the foreign minister, defended the changes saying “It is normal practice to change the draft prepared by a committee... A committee is appointed to facilitate the process.” But some committee members are miffed at not being told the bill heading to parliament was different to theirs. They want the public to know this bill isn’t theirs.
Unredacted now learns that there was some disagreement within the drafting committee itself. Several lawyers on the committee dissented on contentious clauses such as the definition of terrorism and the transfer of detention order powers from judges to a ministry secretary. In the end, in the interests of consensus, they went along with handing over their draft to the minister.
There’s also disagreement emerging within the NPP itself. Some sections of the party, especially those who closely engage with civil society organisations, called for paring back some provisions. Others, especially those who served in uniform, continue to push for the need for legal teeth to counter terrorism. The duration of detention is a particularly contentious point. The hawks even asked that the detention order renewal period, two months in the current bill, be lengthened. Unredacted learns that’s unlikely to happen.
Some ministers say that the bill was finalised using EU anti-terrorism legislation as a model, particularly in defining terrorism, and would therefore be kosher to the international community. Repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act is part of Sri Lanka’s checklist for renewing the EU’s GSP+ facility, which ties human rights compliance to duty free access for Sri Lankan exports to the EU – making it a priority for the government.
The bill will be challenged in court, with civil society lawyers scurrying to petition the Supreme Court against both the anti-terror law and the organised crime bill.
MR’s health and SLPP tensions
Conflicting accounts of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s hospitalisation point to friction within the SLPP too. There’s a camp loyal to the former president and another gathered around his son Namal. The two struggled to settle on a common line: one side projected vigour and tried to keep MR’s illness quiet, while the other went public and invited sympathy.
Despite plans to visit his wife Shiranthi and son Namal in prison on Monday, MR was admitted to hospital soon after he showed symptoms of falling ill. He usually reads the newspapers at around 6 am in his bedroom. When the newspapers were taken to him by his security guards, MR, who usually wakes up when they arrive, continued to lie in bed asleep. The guards then informed the family and made arrangements to immediately take MR to hospital.
Initial reports that he was in Nawaloka’s ICU appear to have come from Namal Rajapaksa’s media unit. But Manoj Gamage, MR’s spokesperson, didn’t get the memo. He initially dismissed claims about MR’s health saying they were malicious rumours spread by political opponents to portray him as weakened by the government’s actions against his family.
