Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) has sounded a strong alarm over the government's proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, cautioning that the sweeping legislation carries significant risks for democratic freedoms, including the right to peaceful protest and freedom of expression. The warning has reignited a broader national debate about how Sri Lanka balances security imperatives with the protection of fundamental civil liberties guaranteed under its constitution.
What Is the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill?
The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill is the latest legislative effort by Sri Lankan authorities to address national security threats through a formalized legal framework. While the government has presented the bill as a necessary tool to combat terrorism and safeguard state institutions, critics argue that its language is dangerously broad and poorly defined. Legal analysts and civil society organizations have pointed out that vague terminology within the bill could be interpreted in ways that extend far beyond its stated purpose, potentially criminalizing ordinary forms of civic dissent and democratic participation.
The bill arrives at a particularly sensitive moment in Sri Lanka's political landscape, where memories of the sweeping powers granted under the now-controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) remain fresh. For decades, the PTA was used not only against genuine security threats but also against journalists, activists, and minority communities, drawing widespread international condemnation. Many observers fear the new bill could repeat those historical patterns under a different name.
TISL's Core Concerns
Transparency International Sri Lanka, a leading anti-corruption and governance watchdog, has outlined several specific areas of concern regarding the proposed legislation. At the heart of TISL's objections is the bill's potential to classify public protests, demonstrations, and organized civic action as activities that threaten state security. If enacted in its current form, the organization warns, ordinary citizens exercising their constitutional right to assembly could find themselves subject to prosecution under anti-terrorism provisions.
TISL has also raised red flags about the bill's implications for freedom of expression. Journalists, bloggers, social media users, and public commentators could potentially face legal jeopardy for publishing content that authorities deem harmful to national security — a threshold that, without clear legal definitions, could be applied arbitrarily. The organization stresses that such ambiguity is not merely a technical drafting flaw but a structural threat to democratic accountability and press freedom in Sri Lanka.
Furthermore, TISL has expressed concern about the oversight mechanisms — or lack thereof — built into the proposed legislation. Robust judicial oversight and clearly defined checks and balances are essential when granting security forces expanded powers. The watchdog argues that the bill, as currently drafted, does not provide adequate safeguards to prevent abuse by state authorities.
The Broader Civil Society Response
TISL is not alone in its concerns. A growing coalition of civil society groups, human rights organizations, bar associations, and academic institutions has begun to voice opposition to the bill. Many are calling on parliament to subject the legislation to rigorous public consultation before any vote is held. Advocates argue that meaningful democratic input is not only a procedural nicety but an essential component of crafting legislation that genuinely serves the public interest rather than entrenching state power.
International human rights bodies have also been watching Sri Lanka's legislative developments closely. Organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have previously flagged concerns about Sri Lanka's track record on civil liberties, and the introduction of this new bill is expected to attract renewed scrutiny from the international community. Sri Lanka's relationships with key bilateral partners and multilateral institutions could be affected if the bill is perceived as a step backward on democratic governance.
Government's Position
Proponents of the bill within the government maintain that updated counter-terrorism legislation is essential for protecting Sri Lanka from evolving security threats, both domestic and transnational. Officials have argued that the existing legal framework is outdated and insufficient to address modern forms of terrorism. They have also suggested that concerns raised by civil society organizations are overstated and that the bill includes adequate protections for civil rights.
However, critics remain unconvinced, arguing that good intentions at the drafting stage have historically proven insufficient protection against legislative overreach once security laws are on the books and in the hands of enforcement agencies.
What Happens Next?
The bill is expected to undergo parliamentary review in the coming weeks. TISL and allied organizations are urging lawmakers to introduce substantial amendments that clearly define key terms, establish independent oversight mechanisms, and explicitly protect the rights to peaceful assembly and free expression. They are also calling for extended public consultations to ensure that all stakeholders, including civil society, legal experts, and affected communities, have a meaningful voice in shaping the final legislation.
As Sri Lanka continues its post-economic crisis recovery and works to rebuild public trust in democratic institutions, the outcome of this legislative battle will serve as a critical test of the government's commitment to upholding the rights and freedoms of its citizens.