Sri Lanka’s ICCPR Act, originally designed to prevent incitement of communal hatred, is now being used as a political tool to silence opposition and suppress media freedoms, raising urgent questions about justice, bail rights, and human rights.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act, once seen as a safeguard against hate speech, is now at the center of a heated debate in Sri Lanka. Opposition voices, legal experts, and activists allege that the Act is being misused to silence dissent, undermine media freedoms, and keep individuals in custody for long periods without bail.
The ICCPR was first adopted by the United Nations in 1966, guaranteeing fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and religious freedom. Sri Lanka became a signatory and passed Act No. 56 of 2007, known as the ICCPR Act, to give effect to the convention domestically. Section 3(1) of the Act criminalizes spreading war, discrimination, or incitement to violence on religious or ethnic grounds, carrying penalties of up to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.
At face value, the Act appears to be a positive legal framework. However, concerns arise when examining its bail conditions. Section 3(4) of the Act makes offenses under this provision non-bailable, leaving suspects dependent on the High Court for release under “exceptional circumstances.” Magistrates, therefore, lack authority to grant bail in ICCPR-related arrests.
The consequences are stark. Without exceptional grounds, suspects can remain behind bars for up to a year before bail is considered. Former leaders, including Ranil Wickremesinghe, were once arrested under other Acts where bail remained possible, though only after demonstrating extraordinary health conditions. Under the ICCPR Act, however, even deteriorating medical conditions may not guarantee release until custody itself becomes prolonged enough to be deemed “exceptional.”
This loophole has made the ICCPR Act an attractive tool for repressive governments worldwide. Instead of prosecuting cases properly, authorities can detain suspects indefinitely under the guise of ICCPR violations. While conviction rates for suspects hover between 4% and 6% in Sri Lanka, they stand much higher elsewhere—90% in England and 99% in Japan.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has intervened, recommending that six strict criteria, known as the Rabat Threshold Test, be met before a statement qualifies as hate speech under the ICCPR. These criteria require context of conflict, the influence of the speaker, intent to incite, direct content of violence, broad spread of the statement, and a real risk of violence.
Yet in Sri Lanka, opposition figures argue that even statements far removed from these benchmarks are being treated as ICCPR offenses. Activists say this amounts to abuse of international law, turning safeguards into shackles.
Press Release (As Issued by Pivithuru Hela Urumaya):
How can the ICCPR Act be used to suppress the opposition and the media?
On August 5, 2025, Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader Lawyer Udaya Gammanpila criticized the arrest and remand of former Navy Commander Admiral Nishantha Ulugetenne, stating that he was arrested on the basis of fabricated testimony from a former LTTE leader.
On August 27, 2025, the Criminal Investigation Department informed the Fort Magistrate’s Court that an investigation had been initiated against Attorney Udaya Gammanpila to determine whether an offense had been committed under Section 3 (1) of the ICCPR Act.
The ICCPR Act, which is one of the main tools used by authoritarian governments around the world to suppress opponents and the media, has also been used by the current government to suppress the opposition. Unfortunately, there is no deep understanding in society of what the ICCPR Act is.
The ICCPR is the abbreviation for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1966. It guarantees a number of rights such as freedom of expression and religious freedom. Since Sri Lanka is also a party to this convention, Act No. 56 of 2007, known as the ICCPR Act, was passed to implement the convention in the country.
In order to give effect to Article 20 of the said Convention, Section 3(1) of this Act makes it an offence for a person to spread war or to discriminate or to incite to violence on religious or ethnic grounds. A person who commits such an offence can be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years with rigorous imprisonment.
The offence prohibited by this Act is the incitement of communal and religious conflicts. Therefore, this Act is a good Act at first sight. The danger here arises when one inquires into the conditions of bail. According to Section 3(4) of the Act, if the above offence has been committed, it is a non-bailable offence. Bail should be released on bail only by the High Court on exceptional grounds.
Accordingly, a Magistrate cannot grant bail to a person arrested under this Act and he should be referred to the High Court. It is difficult to obtain bail quickly in the High Court process. That too only if exceptional grounds are presented. Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe was arrested under the Public Property Act. Accordingly, a magistrate can release a person on bail under exceptional circumstances. However, the court held that his being a party leader or receiving treatment for a number of illnesses could not be accepted as exceptional circumstances. In the end, he was able to obtain bail because his medical conditions had deteriorated to a critical level.
If no exceptional circumstance can be raised, the suspect will have to remain in custody for up to a year. This is because the court considers being in custody for a year as an exceptional circumstance for granting bail.
Under this situation, repressive governments around the world are abusing this Act to suppress freedom of expression by suppressing opposition activists and the media.
Particularly in countries where the prosecution’s failure to properly handle the case leads to the suspects being remanded in custody under laws that make it difficult to obtain bail and are held for long periods of time in order to hide their inefficiency. For example, the conviction rate for suspects in Sri Lanka is between 4% and 6%, while in England it is 90% and in Japan it is as high as 99%.
Since people who make anti-government statements that cannot be considered hate speech at all are being arrested and detained for long periods of time using the ICCPR Act, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has decided that six criteria must be met for a statement to be considered hate speech under the ICCPR Act. These criteria are known as the Rabat Threshold Test.
According to the six-point Rabat test, for a statement to be considered hate speech, first, the context in which the statement is made must be in a context that creates religious or ethnic conflict. Accordingly, the statement must have been made in a context where a group of people are acting aggressively against the relevant ethnic group.
The second criterion is the person making the statement. The person making the statement must be someone who can influence people who are likely to be incited to violence. The third criterion is the intent. It must not be a statement made out of mere carelessness or confusion, but must have the intent to incite a group to violence. The fourth criterion is the content of the statement. It must contain a part that directly incites people to violence. The fifth criterion is the spread of the statement. In this, the factors such as the medium through which the statement was made, the repetition of the statement, and the extent to which the statement reached a large number of people should be considered in depth. Finally, the risk of ethnic or religious violence arising from this statement must arise.
This is patriotically conveyed by the
Pivithuru Hela Urumaya
Attorney Bhupathi Kahathuduwa
Legal Secretary
