Can The PSTA Protect The State Without Fearing Dissent?

Colombo Telegraph’s opinion article by M. C. Rasmin examines Sri Lanka’s proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTA), intended to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). The author characterises the draft as better constructed than the existing law, but says that this does not necessarily make it better legislation. The proposal has prompted substantial public debate, the article says.

Colombo Telegraph reports that objections have come from legal professionals, media workers, unions, minority communities, the United Nations and international human-rights organisations. The article argues that the debate has not been widely accessible to the public, citing media divisions by language, ownership and political affiliation, as well as discussion spread across English-language commentary, online posts and court filings.

Colombo Telegraph sets the proposal against the National People’s Power’s 2024 election manifesto, which promised to repeal oppressive legislation, including the PTA, and safeguard civil rights across the country. It also notes President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s 21 November 2024 address to the new Parliament, in which he outlined an aim of a state founded on law, justice and fairness. The article refers as well to an October 22 social-media post by NPP MP Chathuranga Abeysinghe about the government’s effort to create a progressive society, and asks whether people could be branded terrorists for speech, writing, publication or protest.

Colombo Telegraph reports that Cabinet approved an Anti-Organised Crime Bill in September for submission to Parliament. The article also mentions an unpublished draft called the Non-Governmental Organisations (Registration and Supervision) Bill, which it says would require organisations of five or more people to register. The supplied report cuts off while describing that proposal, so it provides no further details. The article’s central question is whether the proposed terrorism law can protect the state without constraining dissent.