COLOMBO — The Frontline Socialist Party argues that proposed amendments leave extensive detention powers and restrictions on judicial discretion largely untouched, as the Supreme Court examines constitutional challenges to the legislation.
The Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) has accused President Anura Kumara Dissanayake of concentrating public attention on a limited number of controversial provisions in the proposed Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill while failing to address what the party considers more serious threats to individual rights and judicial independence.
FSP Education Secretary Pubudu Jayagoda made the accusation at a press conference on Friday, November 6, responding to amendments proposed by the President the previous day.
Jayagoda described the proposed concessions as largely cosmetic, arguing that the legislation’s broader approach to arrest, detention and criminal liability remained unchanged.
His criticism comes as the Supreme Court considers constitutional objections to the Bill, with 26 petitions filed by legal professionals, civil society representatives and other petitioners.
President Proposes Changes to Three Controversial Areas
Speaking at an interfaith convention on Thursday, November 5, marking the first anniversary of the national anti-drug and anti-crime initiative Ratama Ekata, President Dissanayake announced that the Government was prepared to amend several provisions of the legislation.
The proposed changes include:
1. Reducing the initial detention period: Shortening the period before an arrested suspect must generally be produced before a magistrate from 72 hours to 48 hours.
2. Removing references to tattoos: Deleting provisions that have attracted criticism over the use of tattoos and other identifying characteristics in assessing suspected connections to organised criminal groups.
3. Excluding Excise Ordinance offences: Removing offences under the Excise Ordinance from the legislation’s proposed scope.
The President also expressed willingness to discuss the Bill with human rights organisations and other concerned parties.
The Government maintains that Sri Lanka requires an effective legal framework to combat organised criminal networks and serious offences.
Dissanayake has argued that legislation specifically addressing organised crime is preferable to relying on the Prevention of Terrorism Act for such investigations.
Jayagoda, however, questioned whether the announced amendments would substantially alter the powers proposed under the Bill.
FSP Challenges Broad Criteria for Identifying Suspects
One of the party’s principal objections concerns Clause 4(2), which addresses factors that may be considered when determining whether an individual belongs to an organised criminal group.
Jayagoda argued that the proposed criteria were excessively broad and could expose individuals to suspicion based on appearance, behaviour, social relationships or ordinary activities.
Among the factors he highlighted were:
- Internet communications and interactions.
- Associations with persons suspected of belonging to criminal groups.
- Clothing, tattoos and other identifying characteristics.
- Hand gestures and particular forms of expression or slang.
- Frequent visits to specific locations.
According to Jayagoda, such provisions could create opportunities for arbitrary interpretation and enforcement.
He argued that criminal investigations should be grounded in evidence connecting an individual to an identifiable offence, rather than relying excessively on personal characteristics or associations.
The Government has rejected suggestions that the Bill is intended to criminalise ordinary behaviour, with Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara previously stating that references to appearance and identifying characteristics concern suspected links to organised criminal groups.
Nevertheless, the FSP maintains that the proposed wording requires more substantial revision to prevent misuse.
Detention Powers Remain the Central Dispute
Jayagoda questioned the Government’s emphasis on reducing the initial period before judicial production from 72 to 48 hours.
He argued that the public debate surrounding that change risked obscuring broader detention powers contained elsewhere in the legislation.
In particular, he referred to Clauses 20 and 21, which provide for detention arrangements extending well beyond the initial period following arrest.
According to his interpretation, detention orders could be issued for periods of up to two months and subsequently renewed, allowing detention to continue for as long as one year under the proposed framework.
His criticism focused on the involvement of executive authorities in authorising detention and the degree of judicial oversight available to persons held under such orders.
Jayagoda also challenged Clause 23, arguing that it would significantly restrict the ability of magistrates to grant bail.
He contended that the proposed arrangements would transfer important decisions affecting personal liberty away from the judiciary and towards executive authorities.
“The powers belonging to the Judiciary have been hijacked by the Executive,” he said.
The statement represents Jayagoda’s assessment of the Bill and not a judicial finding that the legislation violates the Constitution.
The Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka have separately raised concerns about the proposed detention arrangements and their implications for constitutional safeguards.
Questions Over the Government’s Amendment Process
Jayagoda also criticised what he characterised as the Government’s piecemeal response to objections raised by the public and legal community.
“You include a provision for 72 hours, and when people protest, you make it 48. Tomorrow you might ask, ‘Shall we make it 24?'” he said.
He questioned how the disputed provisions had been included in the original draft and who would accept responsibility for their potential consequences.
The FSP representative argued that the Government should undertake a broader reconsideration of the legislation instead of modifying selected provisions after public criticism.
His remarks reflected concern that amendments limited to the most publicly debated clauses might leave other contentious provisions intact.
Allegations Concerning Excise Ordinance Offences
Jayagoda further questioned the proposed removal of offences under the Excise Ordinance.
He alleged that liquor manufacturers who had challenged the legislation before the Supreme Court stood to benefit from their exclusion.
The FSP representative also claimed that some individuals connected to those interests had previously provided financial support to the National People’s Power.
No independently verified evidence establishing those political financing allegations was presented in the supplied account. The claims should therefore be treated as allegations rather than established facts.
Jayagoda contrasted the proposed removal of Excise Ordinance offences with the continued inclusion of offences relating to the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance and the Intellectual Property Act.
He questioned the consistency of the Government’s approach to determining which offences should fall within legislation intended primarily to combat organised crime.
Supreme Court Examines 26 Constitutional Challenges
The Bill has also faced substantial scrutiny before the Supreme Court.
Twenty-six special determination petitions were filed challenging its constitutionality.
Hearings commenced on November 4, with petitioners raising concerns about detention powers, restrictions on bail, the definition of serious crime and possible interference with judicial functions.
The Bill was published in the Gazette on October 6 and presented to Parliament on October 20.
Its stated purpose includes giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and strengthening national and international cooperation against serious criminal activity.
However, petitioners have questioned whether its proposed powers are consistent with constitutional protections.
President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva, appearing for petitioner Malinda Seneviratne, argued that provisions of the Bill departed from the principles underlying the international convention.
He also challenged the breadth of the proposed definition of serious crime.
According to his submissions, the definition could extend to certain intellectual property offences carrying comparatively limited penalties, including a six-month prison sentence or a fine of Rs. 500,000.
De Silva further questioned the authority proposed to be exercised by executive officials in relation to detention orders.
Lawyers Warn of Restrictions on Court Reporting
Press freedom was another issue raised during the constitutional proceedings.
President’s Counsel Saliya Pieris, appearing for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, challenged Clause 14(3).
He argued that the provision could restrict the publication of information concerning judicial proceedings involving serious crimes unless permission had been obtained from the court.
Such a requirement, he submitted, could interfere with journalists’ ability to report on court proceedings and matters of public interest.
Attorney-at-Law Suren Fernando separately challenged Clause 19(4), arguing that it could substantially limit a magistrate’s discretion when deciding whether a suspect should be remanded.
He warned that compulsory remand arrangements in certain circumstances could reduce judicial involvement to a procedural formality.
The petitioners’ submissions included arguments that the proposed legislation required approval through a referendum, in addition to the parliamentary procedures applicable to legislation of this nature.
These arguments remain subject to the Supreme Court’s constitutional determination.
Reports on November 5 indicated that the Court had concluded the oral hearings on the 26 petitions.
FSP Also Calls for Reconsideration of Anti-Terrorism Legislation
Jayagoda extended his criticism to the separately proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill.
He argued that the Government should abandon that proposal and proceed with repealing the existing Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The FSP maintains that legislation addressing terrorism and organised crime should not reproduce detention powers or other measures that rights advocates have long criticised under existing security laws.
The Government has defended the need for legislation capable of addressing serious threats while indicating its willingness to consider amendments.
Constitutional Determination Remains Pending
The dispute now extends beyond the Government’s proposed reduction in initial detention time.
At issue are the broader questions of how organised criminal activity should be defined, what powers investigators should possess, how long suspects may be detained and what role the judiciary should retain in protecting individual liberty.
The Government argues that stronger legal mechanisms are needed to counter organised criminal networks. Critics maintain that those mechanisms must remain subject to meaningful safeguards against arbitrary arrest, excessive detention and restrictions on fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court’s constitutional determination will be central to establishing what parliamentary approval procedures and amendments may be required before the Bill can become law.
Until that process is complete, the provisions remain proposals rather than powers already in force.
