Sri Lanka's latest effort to reform its widely criticized counterterrorism legislation has fallen short of international human rights standards, according to a stark warning from Human Rights Watch (HRW). The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTB), set to be presented to Parliament on October 6, 2026, has drawn sharp condemnation from the global rights organization, which argues the bill preserves many of the same abusive provisions found in the existing Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) — a law long associated with serious violations against civilians, minorities, and political dissidents.
What Is the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill?
The PSTB was introduced by the Sri Lankan government as a replacement for the Prevention of Terrorism Act, a piece of legislation that has been in place for decades and has been repeatedly criticized by international human rights bodies, legal experts, and civil society organizations. The PTA has historically been used to detain individuals for extended periods without trial, target Tamil and Muslim communities disproportionately, and suppress political dissent under the broad umbrella of national security. The government positioned the PSTB as a modernized, rights-compliant alternative — one that would align Sri Lanka more closely with its international obligations, particularly those tied to its trade relationship with the European Union.
Human Rights Watch Raises Serious Concerns
Despite the government's assurances, Human Rights Watch has issued a detailed critique of the proposed bill, arguing that it fails to deliver on the promise of meaningful reform. According to HRW, the PSTB retains an overbroad definition of terrorism — a central flaw that has historically allowed authorities to criminalize peaceful protest, journalism, and legitimate political activity. This sweeping definition gives security forces and prosecutors wide discretionary powers that can easily be weaponized against vulnerable communities or political opponents.
HRW further contends that the bill does not adequately address the systemic issues that made the PTA so harmful in the first place. These include provisions allowing for prolonged detention without judicial oversight, limited access to legal counsel during critical early stages of detention, and insufficient safeguards against torture and ill-treatment in custody. Rights advocates have documented numerous cases under the PTA where detainees — many of them Tamil individuals arrested in the aftermath of the civil war — were held for years without charge or fair trial.
Implications for Sri Lanka's EU Trade Commitments
The stakes of this legislative debate extend well beyond domestic politics. Sri Lanka benefits from the European Union's Generalized Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+), a trade arrangement that grants preferential tariff access to EU markets in exchange for the implementation of 27 international conventions on human rights, labor rights, environmental protection, and good governance. The EU has made it explicitly clear that continued access to GSP+ is contingent on meaningful progress in human rights reforms, including the repeal or substantial amendment of the PTA.
Human Rights Watch warns that if the PSTB is passed in its current form, Sri Lanka risks failing to meet those commitments, potentially jeopardizing its GSP+ status. The economic consequences of losing preferential EU trade access would be significant for a country still navigating recovery from a devastating financial crisis. Sri Lanka's garment and textile industries, which employ hundreds of thousands of workers — many of them women — are particularly dependent on EU market access.
Civil Society and International Voices Align Against the Bill
Human Rights Watch is not alone in its criticism. Domestic civil society organizations, bar associations, and Tamil and Muslim community groups have similarly raised alarms about the PSTB. Many argue that the bill represents a cosmetic rebranding of the PTA rather than a genuine overhaul. Legal experts have pointed out that without structural changes to how terrorism is defined and prosecuted, the new legislation will simply replicate the patterns of abuse that have characterized the old law for generations.
International bodies, including United Nations human rights experts and special rapporteurs, have also repeatedly called on Sri Lanka to ensure that any replacement for the PTA fully complies with international human rights law. These calls emphasize the need for independent judicial oversight, prompt access to legal representation, and clear, narrowly defined criteria for what constitutes a terrorist offense.
What Needs to Change?
For the PSTB to genuinely represent reform, Human Rights Watch and allied organizations argue that the Sri Lankan government must fundamentally revise the bill's core provisions. This includes narrowing the definition of terrorism to exclude protected forms of expression and assembly, establishing robust judicial oversight for all detentions, ensuring timely access to lawyers, and creating independent accountability mechanisms for security forces. Without these changes, experts warn that the cycle of abuse enabled by the PTA will simply continue under a new name.
As Parliament prepares to receive the bill, pressure is mounting on Sri Lankan lawmakers to listen to both domestic and international voices calling for genuine, rights-respecting reform — reform that protects national security without sacrificing the fundamental rights of the people the law is meant to serve.