Senior President's Counsel Saliya Pieris has sounded a serious alarm over what he describes as undisclosed and significant alterations made to Sri Lanka's proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill — changes he says were introduced after the relevant parliamentary committee had already approved the draft. Pieris warns that these modifications reduce judicial oversight, expand executive authority, and critically weaken protections for individual liberty, raising urgent questions about transparency and democratic accountability in Sri Lanka's legislative process.
What Saliya Pieris Is Alleging
According to Saliya Pieris, PC, the changes in question were never referred back to the parliamentary committee for review or approval. This means that lawmakers who participated in the committee process were effectively kept in the dark about alterations that could have a profound impact on how the legislation functions in practice. Pieris contends that this approach bypasses the very purpose of committee deliberations — which is to subject proposed laws to careful, multi-stakeholder scrutiny before they reach the floor of Parliament.
The President's Counsel has been particularly vocal about the nature of the changes themselves. He argues that the revised provisions tilt the balance of power away from the judiciary and toward the executive branch, a shift that he considers deeply troubling in the context of anti-terrorism legislation. Laws of this nature, by design, grant authorities extraordinary powers. Without robust judicial checks, Pieris warns, those powers become ripe for misuse.
Key Safeguards Said to Be Removed
While the full text of the post-committee amendments has not been made comprehensively public, Pieris has highlighted several areas of concern. Among the most critical are provisions that previously required judicial authorization or oversight before certain executive actions could be taken under the anti-terror framework. The removal or dilution of these provisions, he argues, gives security and executive agencies broader, less accountable powers to detain, investigate, and act against individuals suspected of terrorism-related offenses.
Additionally, Pieris has raised concerns that protections designed to safeguard the rights of individuals during detention and investigation have been weakened. In anti-terror legislation globally, such safeguards are considered essential precisely because the stakes — both for national security and for civil liberties — are extraordinarily high. Stripping them out after a committee has signed off on their inclusion, he argues, undermines the integrity of the entire legislative drafting process.
Why This Matters for Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka has a complicated history with anti-terrorism legislation. The country operated for decades under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), a law widely criticized by human rights organizations, legal experts, and civil society groups for enabling prolonged detention without trial, facilitating torture, and being disproportionately applied against ethnic and religious minorities. The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill was presented, at least in part, as a reform effort — a modernized replacement that would address the PTA's well-documented shortcomings.
If the allegations made by Saliya Pieris are accurate, however, the new Bill may be repeating — or even compounding — the very problems it was meant to solve. The removal of judicial safeguards and the expansion of executive power are precisely the features that made the PTA so controversial. Civil society groups and legal observers have long insisted that any replacement legislation must be more rights-compliant, not less. The allegations suggest that the final version of the Bill may be moving in the opposite direction.
The Democratic Process Under Scrutiny
Beyond the substance of the changes, Pieris has drawn attention to the process by which they were reportedly made. Parliamentary committees serve a vital function in a functioning democracy. They allow for detailed examination of legislation, provide a forum for expert testimony, and create a record of deliberation that informs the broader legislative debate. When changes of substance are made to a Bill after a committee has completed its work — and without referring those changes back for review — it raises fundamental questions about legislative transparency.
Pieris's allegations suggest that the final Bill presented to Parliament may differ materially from what the committee reviewed and approved. If true, this would mean that elected representatives are being asked to vote on legislation that does not accurately reflect the committee's considered recommendations — a serious breach of parliamentary norms.
Calls for Transparency and Review
In light of these concerns, Saliya Pieris and others in the legal community are calling for full transparency regarding what changes were made, when they were made, and on whose authority. There are growing calls for the amended provisions to be referred back to the relevant committee before the Bill proceeds further, allowing for proper scrutiny and public accountability.
The Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill remains one of the most consequential pieces of legislation currently before Sri Lanka's Parliament. How the government responds to these allegations — and whether it chooses transparency over expediency — will speak volumes about its commitment to democratic governance and the rule of law.