Sri Lanka's much-anticipated Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill has drawn sharp criticism from human rights expert Ambika Satkunanathan, who argues that the legislation represents a "facade of system change" rather than genuine reform. The bill, intended to replace the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), has failed to meet international human rights standards despite months of review.
Broken Promises of Reform
In April 2025, the Sri Lankan government announced the formation of a committee tasked with reviewing the PTA and proposing new legislation aligned with international human rights standards. This announcement raised hopes among civil society organizations and international observers who had long criticized the PTA for its human rights violations and abuse potential.
However, seven months after the committee's establishment, the submitted draft legislation has proven to be a significant disappointment. According to Satkunanathan's analysis, the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill is essentially "a reproduction of previous drafts which did not adhere to international legal standards."
The recycling of previously rejected proposals raises serious questions about the government's commitment to meaningful reform. Previous attempts at replacing the PTA faced heavy criticism from human rights organizations, legal experts, and international bodies for failing to address fundamental concerns about civil liberties and due process protections.
International Standards Ignored
The failure to incorporate international human rights standards represents a critical flaw in the proposed legislation. International legal frameworks emphasize the importance of balancing national security concerns with fundamental rights protections, including fair trial guarantees, protection against arbitrary detention, and safeguards against torture.
Satkunanathan's critique highlights how the new bill perpetuates many of the problematic elements that made the PTA controversial in the first place. These issues include broad definitions of terrorism that could be misused to target legitimate political dissent, extended detention periods without judicial review, and insufficient oversight mechanisms.
The international community has consistently called for Sri Lanka to reform its counter-terrorism legislation to comply with global human rights standards. The European Union, United Nations human rights bodies, and various democratic governments have expressed concerns about the PTA's impact on civil liberties and its potential for abuse.
System Change or Cosmetic Reform?
The characterization of the proposed bill as a "facade of system change" strikes at the heart of broader concerns about Sri Lanka's approach to governance reform. The term "system change" has become a significant political slogan in Sri Lankan politics, promising comprehensive reforms to address long-standing issues in governance, human rights, and institutional accountability.
However, Satkunanathan's analysis suggests that the terrorism bill represents cosmetic changes rather than substantive reform. By recycling previous draft proposals that were already deemed inadequate, the government appears to be prioritizing the appearance of change over meaningful transformation.
This approach undermines public trust and international confidence in Sri Lanka's commitment to genuine reform. It also perpetuates the cycle of criticism and revision that has characterized previous attempts to replace the PTA, potentially delaying necessary improvements to the country's counter-terrorism framework.
Civil Society Concerns
Human rights organizations and civil society groups have long advocated for comprehensive reform of Sri Lanka's counter-terrorism legislation. Their concerns center on the need for robust safeguards against abuse, clear definitions of terrorism-related offenses, and strong judicial oversight of security operations.
The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill's failure to address these fundamental concerns has drawn criticism from various quarters. Legal experts argue that effective counter-terrorism legislation must strike a careful balance between providing security forces with necessary tools and protecting citizens' fundamental rights.
The lack of meaningful consultation with civil society organizations during the drafting process has also been criticized. Effective legislative reform typically involves extensive stakeholder engagement to ensure that diverse perspectives are considered and potential unintended consequences are identified.
Path Forward
Satkunanathan's critique of the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill highlights the urgent need for genuine reform rather than superficial changes. The government faces a critical choice between pursuing meaningful transformation that aligns with international standards or continuing with cosmetic adjustments that fail to address fundamental concerns.
Moving forward, Sri Lanka must demonstrate genuine commitment to system change by engaging in comprehensive reform processes that prioritize human rights protections while addressing legitimate security concerns. This requires moving beyond recycled proposals to develop innovative approaches that reflect best practices in democratic counter-terrorism legislation.
The international community's continued scrutiny of Sri Lanka's counter-terrorism framework means that half-measures and cosmetic reforms are unlikely to satisfy external stakeholders or address domestic concerns about human rights protections. Only through genuine commitment to reform can Sri Lanka hope to build a counter-terrorism framework that effectively balances security needs with fundamental rights protections.