Sri Lanka's long-awaited effort to reform its controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) has drawn sharp criticism from Human Rights Watch (HRW), which warns that the country's latest Counterterrorism Bill continues to preserve deeply problematic provisions. Despite promises of meaningful reform, the new legislation appears to replicate many of the same abusive mechanisms that have long been condemned by civil society groups, legal experts, and international human rights organizations.
Background: The Problem With the PTA
The Prevention of Terrorism Act has been a flashpoint for human rights concerns in Sri Lanka for decades. Originally enacted in 1979, the PTA granted sweeping powers to security forces, allowing for prolonged detention without trial, restrictions on legal representation, and the use of confessions obtained under questionable circumstances as admissible evidence in court. Critics have long argued that the law was disproportionately used against Tamil and Muslim minorities, journalists, activists, and political dissidents.
The international community, including the European Union and United Nations human rights bodies, repeatedly called on Sri Lanka to repeal or substantially reform the PTA as a condition for trade benefits and improved diplomatic relations. Under sustained pressure, the Sri Lankan government pledged to introduce a replacement law that would align with international human rights standards. The Counterterrorism Bill was presented as that replacement — but HRW argues it falls far short of what is required.
What HRW Found in the New Bill
According to Human Rights Watch, the new Counterterrorism Bill retains numerous provisions that mirror the abusive elements of the PTA. Among the most concerning features highlighted by the organization is the continued allowance for extended detention periods without adequate judicial oversight. This means individuals suspected of terrorism-related offenses can still be held for prolonged periods before being formally charged or brought before a court.
HRW also flagged the bill's broad and vague definitions of what constitutes a terrorist act. Such ambiguous language, critics warn, creates significant room for misuse and could be weaponized against peaceful protesters, journalists, religious minorities, and human rights defenders. The lack of precise legal boundaries opens the door to politically motivated prosecutions, a pattern that has already been well-documented under the existing PTA.
Additionally, the new bill reportedly maintains provisions that allow statements made during police custody to be used as evidence — a practice widely criticized because it creates incentives for security forces to extract confessions through coercive means, including torture. Independent monitoring mechanisms to prevent such abuses remain insufficient under the proposed legislation, according to HRW's assessment.
Civil Society and Legal Community Respond
The reaction from Sri Lanka's civil society organizations has been one of deep disappointment. Lawyers, activists, and advocacy groups who had been pushing for genuine reform expressed frustration that the government appears to have produced a rebranded version of the PTA rather than a fundamentally different legal framework. Many had submitted detailed recommendations during the drafting process, only to find that their core concerns were largely ignored in the final text of the bill.
Legal experts point out that a counterterrorism law, by its very nature, must strike a careful balance between national security imperatives and the protection of fundamental rights. That balance, they argue, has not been achieved in the current draft. Without stronger safeguards, independent oversight, and clearly defined legal standards, the bill risks perpetuating the same cycle of abuse that has defined the PTA era.
International Implications
The criticism from HRW carries significant weight in the context of Sri Lanka's international relationships. The country has been seeking to maintain preferential trade arrangements, including the GSP+ scheme with the European Union, which requires adherence to core human rights conventions. A counterterrorism law that fails to meet international standards could jeopardize these agreements and further strain Sri Lanka's relationships with key trading partners and donor nations.
United Nations human rights mechanisms have also been closely monitoring Sri Lanka's legislative developments. Any failure to deliver credible reform is likely to result in continued scrutiny and potential consequences at the international level, including renewed calls for accountability mechanisms related to past human rights violations.
What Needs to Change
Human Rights Watch has called on the Sri Lankan government to go back to the drawing board and produce a bill that genuinely replaces — rather than replicates — the PTA. Specific recommendations include narrowing the definition of terrorism to exclude legitimate forms of dissent and protest, establishing strict time limits on detention with mandatory judicial review, removing provisions that allow coerced confessions as evidence, and creating robust independent oversight bodies with real enforcement powers.
The path forward for Sri Lanka's counterterrorism legislation remains uncertain. With international pressure mounting and domestic civil society growing increasingly vocal, the government faces a critical choice between cosmetic reform and meaningful change. For the communities most affected by decades of PTA abuses, the stakes could not be higher.