Amnesty International has called on Sri Lanka's Parliament to immediately withdraw a controversial new piece of legislation that the global human rights organization says grants authorities dangerously broad and arbitrary powers in the name of fighting organised crime. The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill, tabled in Parliament on 6 October, has drawn sharp international criticism for its provisions that critics argue could be used to suppress civil liberties, silence dissent, and undermine the fundamental rights of suspects and citizens alike.
What Is the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill?
The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill was introduced to Sri Lanka's Parliament as a legislative tool designed to combat what the government describes as the growing threat of organised criminal networks operating within and beyond the country's borders. On the surface, the bill presents itself as a necessary measure to strengthen law enforcement capabilities and bring Sri Lanka in line with international standards for tackling serious crime syndicates.
However, a closer examination of the bill's provisions reveals a deeply troubling framework that legal experts, human rights defenders, and international organizations say goes far beyond what is necessary or proportionate. The bill contains sweeping powers that could be exercised with little judicial oversight, raising serious concerns about the potential for abuse by state authorities.
Amnesty International's Key Concerns
Amnesty International has outlined several critical areas of concern regarding the bill's content and its potential impact on human rights in Sri Lanka. Chief among these is a provision that would make confessions extracted under duress admissible as evidence in court proceedings. This alarming clause effectively opens the door to the use of torture and coercive interrogation methods by law enforcement officials, knowing that any statements obtained through such means could still be used to secure convictions.
The organization has emphasized that admitting confessions obtained under duress directly contradicts international human rights law and Sri Lanka's own obligations under treaties it has ratified, including the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Allowing such evidence not only endangers individuals in custody but also fundamentally corrupts the integrity of the justice system.
Beyond the confession clause, Amnesty International has raised serious alarms about the bill's broader scope of arbitrary powers. The legislation reportedly grants authorities the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without adequate judicial review, restrict movement, and impose other significant limitations on personal freedoms based on vague and broadly defined criteria related to "organised crime." The ambiguity of such definitions creates fertile ground for the targeting of political opponents, activists, journalists, and minority communities under the guise of fighting criminal networks.
A Pattern of Rights Erosion in Sri Lanka
Amnesty International's opposition to this bill does not exist in a vacuum. Sri Lanka has a documented history of using broadly worded security legislation to silence critics and suppress legitimate dissent. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, long condemned by human rights bodies worldwide, has been used for decades to detain individuals without trial, often targeting Tamil communities and political activists. Critics fear that the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill represents a continuation and even an escalation of this troubling pattern.
The timing of the bill is also significant. Sri Lanka is still navigating a fragile period of political and economic recovery following the mass public protests of 2022 that toppled the government of then-President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Civil society groups warn that powerful new security laws introduced during such a period could be weaponized against the very citizens who exercised their democratic rights to demand accountability and change.
International Standards and the Rule of Law
Amnesty International has stressed that while combating organised crime is a legitimate and important government objective, it must never come at the cost of human rights. International law is clear that even in the context of fighting serious crime, states are bound to uphold the right to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, the right to legal representation, and the presumption of innocence. Effective crime-fighting legislation can and must be designed within these boundaries.
The organization has called on Sri Lanka's Parliament to engage in meaningful consultation with civil society, legal experts, and human rights organizations before advancing any legislation in this area. Any revised bill must be carefully drafted to ensure that powers granted to authorities are specific, proportionate, and subject to robust independent oversight and judicial accountability.
What Happens Next?
As the bill continues its passage through Sri Lanka's Parliament, pressure from Amnesty International and other human rights bodies is expected to grow. Domestic civil society organizations have also begun mobilizing opposition, urging lawmakers to reject or substantially amend the legislation before it becomes law.
The international community will be watching closely. Sri Lanka's ability to rebuild its democratic institutions and restore public trust depends significantly on its commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of all its citizens — not sacrificing them in the name of security.