Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) has issued a strong call on the government to withdraw the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill 2026, warning that the legislation contains deeply troubling provisions that could undermine fundamental rights, erode judicial independence, and curtail democratic freedoms across the country. The watchdog organization's statement has sparked fresh debate over the balance between national security and civil liberties in Sri Lanka.
What Is the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill?
The Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill 2026 was gazetted on September 22, 2026, and has since drawn widespread scrutiny from civil society organizations, legal experts, and human rights advocates. The Bill is presented by the government as a legislative measure designed to strengthen national security frameworks and protect the state from threats posed by terrorism. However, critics argue that its sweeping provisions go far beyond what is necessary or proportionate to achieve those stated goals.
The Bill's broad language and extensive powers granted to state authorities have raised red flags among those who monitor democratic governance and institutional accountability. Concerns center on the potential for misuse of the legislation to target political dissent, suppress free expression, and weaken the role of the judiciary in checking executive power.
TISL's Key Concerns Over the Bill
In its official statement, TISL outlined several critical concerns regarding the Bill's provisions. The organization stressed that the proposed legislation poses a direct threat to the fundamental rights guaranteed to Sri Lankan citizens under the Constitution. Among the most alarming aspects highlighted by TISL are the broad and vague definitions of terrorism-related offenses, which could be interpreted expansively to criminalize legitimate forms of protest, journalism, and political opposition.
TISL also raised serious concerns about the Bill's potential to weaken judicial independence. Provisions within the legislation reportedly grant significant authority to the executive branch in determining terrorism-related matters, reducing the ability of courts to provide meaningful oversight and protect individuals from arbitrary detention or prosecution. This shift in the balance of power between the executive and judiciary is seen as a dangerous precedent that could have long-lasting consequences for the rule of law in Sri Lanka.
Furthermore, TISL warned that the Bill could be used as a tool to restrict democratic freedoms, including freedom of speech, assembly, and association. The organization emphasized that anti-terrorism legislation must be carefully crafted to target genuine threats without becoming an instrument of political repression. In its current form, TISL believes the Bill fails to meet that standard.
The Broader Context: Civil Liberties vs. National Security
Sri Lanka has a complex history with anti-terrorism legislation. The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), long criticized by human rights groups for enabling abuses, has been a contentious issue for decades. Efforts to reform or replace the PTA have been ongoing, and many civil society organizations had hoped that any new legislation would represent a step forward in aligning Sri Lanka's legal framework with international human rights standards.
The introduction of the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, however, has raised fears that the country may be moving in the opposite direction. Critics argue that rather than addressing the well-documented shortcomings of existing anti-terrorism laws, the new Bill risks replicating and even amplifying those problems. The timing of the legislation has also drawn scrutiny, with some observers questioning whether the Bill is genuinely motivated by security concerns or by a desire to expand state power over political opponents and civil society.
Calls for Transparent Legislative Process
Beyond calling for the Bill's withdrawal, TISL has urged the government to engage in a transparent and inclusive legislative process if it intends to pursue any form of anti-terrorism legislation. This includes meaningful consultations with civil society organizations, legal experts, opposition political parties, and representatives of communities that have historically been most affected by anti-terrorism laws in Sri Lanka.
TISL stressed that any legislation touching on national security must be developed with robust safeguards against abuse, clear definitions of offenses, strong judicial oversight mechanisms, and full compliance with Sri Lanka's international human rights obligations. The organization warned that pushing through legislation of this magnitude without adequate public debate and scrutiny would itself be a threat to democratic governance.
What Happens Next?
The government has yet to formally respond to TISL's demands. However, pressure is expected to mount from multiple quarters, including legal bodies, opposition parliamentarians, and international human rights organizations, as awareness of the Bill's provisions grows. Civil society groups have indicated they will continue to campaign against the legislation and are exploring all available avenues, including potential constitutional challenges, to prevent its passage in its current form.
The coming weeks are likely to be critical in determining whether the government proceeds with the Bill or heeds the growing chorus of voices calling for its withdrawal. For advocates of democratic freedoms and human rights in Sri Lanka, the stakes could not be higher.