Sri Lanka is once again at a crossroads when it comes to national security legislation. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People's Power (NPP) government has drafted the Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), and the nation is waiting with bated breath for its official gazette publication. While the Cabinet of Ministers has already approved the draft, serious questions are being raised by civil society, legal experts, and ordinary citizens alike: Is this law genuinely designed to protect the people of Sri Lanka from terrorism, or is it another tool to protect the state from its own people?
The Legacy of Anti-Terrorism Laws in Sri Lanka
To understand the significance of the PSTA, one must first appreciate the deeply troubled history of anti-terrorism legislation in Sri Lanka. The country has lived under the shadow of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) since 1979, a law that was originally introduced as a temporary measure but became a permanent fixture of Sri Lanka's legal landscape. The PTA has been widely criticized by international human rights organizations, legal bodies, and United Nations experts for enabling arbitrary detention, torture, and the suppression of legitimate dissent.
Successive governments promised reform. The Rajapaksa administration paid lip service to it. The Wickremesinghe government introduced a watered-down amendment that satisfied few. Now, the NPP — which came to power riding a wave of popular anti-establishment sentiment — has produced its own version of anti-terrorism legislation. The critical question remains whether the PSTA represents a genuine departure from the authoritarian tendencies of its predecessor or simply repackages the same repressive mechanisms under a new name.
What the Name Itself Reveals
Language matters in law, and the title of this legislation is telling. The act is called the Protection of the State from Terrorism Act — not the "Protection of the People from Terrorism Act." This is not a minor semantic distinction. It signals, at least in its framing, that the primary beneficiary of this legislation is the state apparatus itself rather than the citizens who are supposed to be served and protected by their government.
In democracies, the state exists to serve the people. Anti-terrorism laws should, therefore, be designed to protect civilians from violence, extremism, and organized threats. When legislation is framed around protecting the state, it opens the door to criminalizing political opposition, suppressing journalism, silencing minority communities, and targeting activists who challenge government authority. Sri Lanka's history with the PTA demonstrates precisely how such laws can be weaponized against the very people they claim to protect.
Civil Society Concerns and International Scrutiny
Human rights organizations and legal experts in Sri Lanka have already begun raising alarm bells. Among the key concerns is the definition of terrorism within the draft legislation. Overly broad definitions have historically been used to label trade union activity, peaceful protest, and minority rights advocacy as threats to national security. If the PSTA retains similarly vague language, it risks becoming another instrument of political repression.
International scrutiny is also intensifying. Sri Lanka continues to operate under the European Union's GSP+ trade concessions, which are conditional on meaningful progress in human rights and governance. The United Nations Human Rights Council has maintained a watchful eye on Sri Lanka following the decades-long civil war and its aftermath. A flawed anti-terrorism law could jeopardize these relationships and further isolate the country at a time when it desperately needs international economic support to recover from its devastating financial crisis.
The NPP's Responsibility to Break the Cycle
The NPP government was elected on a platform of systemic change. Millions of Sri Lankans, particularly the youth, voted for the NPP because they believed it represented something fundamentally different from the corrupt, authoritarian political culture that had dominated the country for decades. That mandate carries with it a profound responsibility — especially when it comes to legislation as consequential as anti-terrorism law.
If the PSTA is to live up to the NPP's promises, it must include robust judicial oversight, clear and narrow definitions of terrorism, strong protections against arbitrary detention, and independent review mechanisms. It must explicitly safeguard the rights of journalists, activists, ethnic minorities, and political dissenters. Anything less would represent a betrayal of the popular mandate the NPP received.
Conclusion: The Gazette Will Tell the Truth
Sri Lanka has been here before — promised reform, delivered repression. The gazette publication of the PSTA will be the moment of truth for the NPP government. Civil society must remain vigilant, legal experts must scrutinize every clause, and citizens must demand transparency throughout the legislative process. A law that protects the state at the expense of the people is not progress — it is simply the old order wearing a new face. Sri Lanka deserves better, and the NPP must prove it understands that.