Sri Lanka's proposed Prevention of Organised Crime Bill has come under fierce criticism from the country's own Human Rights Commission, which has formally demanded its immediate withdrawal. The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) has declared the draft legislation "wholly incompatible" with the nation's Constitution and its obligations under international human rights treaties — a damning verdict that has sent shockwaves through legal and civil society circles. Critics are now warning that if passed, the bill could become an even more dangerous tool of state repression than the widely condemned Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
What Is the Prevention of Organised Crime Bill?
The Prevention of Organised Crime Bill was introduced by the Ministry of Justice and National Integration under Minister Harshana Nanayakkara as part of a broader effort to combat organized criminal networks operating within Sri Lanka. On the surface, the legislation appears to target serious criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, financial crime, and gang-related violence. However, legal experts, human rights advocates, and now the HRCSL itself have raised serious alarms about the bill's sweeping language, vague definitions, and extraordinary powers it would grant to law enforcement and state authorities.
The bill has drawn particular concern for its potential to be misused against political dissidents, journalists, activists, and minority communities — groups that have historically borne the brunt of Sri Lanka's existing emergency and anti-terrorism legislation.
HRCSL's Formal Objections
In a formal letter addressed directly to Minister Nanayakkara, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka outlined a detailed and scathing critique of the proposed law. The Commission's central argument is that the bill, in its current form, is fundamentally at odds with the Sri Lankan Constitution and violates multiple international human rights frameworks to which Sri Lanka is a signatory.
Among the HRCSL's key concerns is the bill's broad and loosely defined scope. The Commission warned that the ambiguous definitions of "organised crime" could be interpreted so widely as to criminalize legitimate forms of protest, collective action, and civil society organizing. This kind of legislative overreach, the Commission argued, creates fertile ground for abuse by authorities seeking to silence opposition or suppress dissent under the guise of fighting crime.
The HRCSL also flagged serious concerns regarding due process and fair trial guarantees. The bill reportedly contains provisions that would allow for extended detention without charge, restricted access to legal counsel, and the use of evidence obtained through questionable means — all of which run counter to fundamental rights enshrined both in Sri Lanka's Constitution and in international covenants such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Worse Than the PTA? A Troubling Comparison
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the HRCSL's criticism is its comparison of the Organised Crime Bill to the Prevention of Terrorism Act — a law that has itself been the subject of sustained international condemnation for decades. The PTA has been used to detain individuals for prolonged periods without trial, and has been widely criticized by the United Nations, international human rights organizations, and Sri Lanka's own civil society as a tool of oppression that disproportionately targets Tamil and Muslim communities.
The fact that the HRCSL — a statutory body established by the state itself — is characterizing the new bill as potentially more draconian than the PTA is an extraordinary indictment. It signals that rather than moving toward reform and greater accountability, Sri Lanka risks entrenching a culture of impunity and expanding the legal architecture of repression under the cover of organized crime legislation.
Civil Society and Legal Community Respond
The HRCSL's intervention has galvanized Sri Lanka's broader civil society and legal community. Lawyers' associations, media freedom groups, and human rights organizations have echoed the Commission's calls for the bill to be withdrawn and subjected to meaningful public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. Many have emphasized that any legislation targeting organized crime must be carefully crafted to include robust oversight mechanisms, clear definitions, and strong judicial safeguards to prevent misuse.
Transparency and accountability advocates have also pointed out that Sri Lanka's track record with broadly worded security legislation makes this bill particularly dangerous. Without significant revision, they argue, the law could become yet another instrument wielded selectively against the government's critics rather than against genuine criminal networks.
What Happens Next?
The Ministry of Justice has yet to issue a formal public response to the HRCSL's demands. The bill's fate now rests in the hands of lawmakers and, ultimately, the government's willingness to engage with the serious constitutional and human rights concerns that have been raised. With Sri Lanka still navigating the fragile aftermath of its 2022 economic crisis and working to rebuild public trust in state institutions, passing deeply controversial legislation of this nature could prove politically and reputationally costly.
The Human Rights Commission's bold intervention serves as a critical reminder that genuine security reform must never come at the expense of fundamental freedoms. Sri Lanka's international partners and human rights bodies will be watching closely to see whether the government chooses the path of accountability — or doubles down on a legislative approach that risks repeating the mistakes of the past.