COLOMBO, October 20, 2026 — Sri Lanka’s proposed Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill would permit extended police detention, expanded surveillance, warrantless searches and the admission of certain police-recorded confessions, prompting warnings over fundamental rights and media freedom.
Sri Lanka’s proposed Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill has come under scrutiny over provisions that would allow police to detain suspects for extended periods, search premises without warrants, obtain sensitive communications data and use certain confessions made to senior police officers as evidence in criminal proceedings.
The legislation, gazetted on October 6 and presented to Parliament for its first reading on October 20, is intended to strengthen Sri Lanka’s response to organised criminal networks involved in drug trafficking, money laundering, human trafficking and other serious offences.
Its objectives include improving cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies and implementing provisions of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime.
However, a clause-by-clause examination has exposed concerns that powers intended to dismantle criminal networks could also undermine established legal protections, including judicial oversight, personal liberty, privacy and freedom of expression.
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has warned that the proposed legislation creates an extensive parallel system of arrest and detention, potentially weakening safeguards available under ordinary criminal law.
The provisions remain proposals. They have not become enforceable law merely because the Bill has been gazetted or introduced in Parliament.
Gang Membership Could Be Assessed Through Clothing and Associations
One of the most contentious provisions concerns how courts would determine whether a person belongs to an organised criminal group.
Under Clause 4(2), judges may consider factors including a person’s clothing, hand signs, tattoos, associations and places they frequent when assessing alleged membership of such a group.
Critics argue that these criteria could permit individuals to be treated as suspected gang members partly because of their appearance, social connections or movements rather than evidence of direct participation in criminal activity.
Human rights advocates fear that young people, marginalised communities, protesters and political dissenters could become vulnerable to inappropriate investigation or prosecution.
The provision does not expressly establish that clothing or association alone automatically proves guilt. Nevertheless, its breadth raises questions about how such evidence would be interpreted and what safeguards would prevent arbitrary application.
CPA has warned that the proposed criteria risk criminalising association rather than conduct.
Police Could Search Without Warrants and Hold Suspects for 72 Hours
Clause 17 would permit police officers, where the relevant suspicion threshold is met, to stop and search individuals and vehicles, enter premises, conduct searches without warrants, arrest suspects and seize items connected with investigations into serious offences.
The extent of those powers represents a substantial departure from the judicial safeguards ordinarily associated with entry into private property.
Equally significant is Clause 20(1), which would allow a suspect arrested under the proposed legislation to be held for up to 72 hours before being produced before the nearest Magistrate, excluding specified travel time.
Under Section 37 of Sri Lanka’s Code of Criminal Procedure Act, the ordinary rule generally requires an individual arrested without a warrant to be brought before a Magistrate within 24 hours.
The Bill would therefore permit a considerably longer period of initial police custody.
A Magistrate could authorise an additional 24 hours where further investigation is required, provided the reasons are recorded.
Critics warn that prolonged detention before judicial examination increases the importance of independent monitoring, access to legal representation and safeguards against coercive interrogation.
Detention Orders Could Continue for Up to One Year
Clause 21 introduces an additional detention mechanism.
The Inspector General of Police, or an authorised officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General, could request an order from the relevant Ministry Secretary to detain a suspect for investigative purposes.
Each order could authorise detention for up to two months, with successive orders permitted for an aggregate period not exceeding one year from the original order.
Under Clause 25, individuals already held on remand could also be returned to police custody and kept separately for periods of up to two weeks at a time, subject to an aggregate maximum of six months.
These arrangements have generated particular concern because they could expose suspects to repeated periods of police-controlled detention.
Legal and civil liberties advocates have questioned whether the proposed framework provides sufficient independent oversight to prevent arbitrary detention, ill-treatment and abuse of authority.
High Court Bail Restrictions Add Another Layer of Concern
Clause 23 would restrict applications for bail under the relevant provisions to the High Court.
For serious offences punishable by death or life imprisonment, bail would be available only in exceptional circumstances.
The proposed legislation also addresses prolonged remand custody without prosecution.
Where an indictment has not been preferred within one year, the High Court would be required to release the suspect on bail under the relevant provision.
Although that creates a time-related protection, critics argue that the restrictions on bail and the extended detention powers must be considered together.
Their combined effect could leave suspects facing long periods in custody before their cases are brought to trial.
Digital Surveillance Powers Raise Privacy Questions
The Bill would also introduce extensive investigative powers involving telecommunications and electronic devices.
Clauses 28 and 45 provide mechanisms for obtaining communications records, intercepting or recording information and accessing digital evidence through the procedures specified in the legislation.
Of particular concern is Clause 44(4), which would allow designated senior police officers to obtain subscriber information, call records and location data from service providers without first obtaining a court order.
Clause 45 also provides for access to encrypted devices and data, including mechanisms requiring protected equipment or information to be unlocked where the applicable legal conditions are met.
These measures could strengthen investigations involving sophisticated criminal networks that rely on encrypted communications and digital transactions.
At the same time, access to communications data can reveal extensive information about individuals’ movements, contacts and private activities.
The absence of prior judicial authorisation for certain categories of information raises questions about proportionality, accountability and safeguards against surveillance unrelated to legitimate criminal investigations.
Court Reporting and Victim Identification Face Restrictions
The proposed legislation also contains provisions affecting journalists and media organisations.
Clause 14(1) would make it an offence to publish information identifying, or capable of identifying, a victim of a serious crime covered by the Bill.
Following a summary trial before a Magistrate, an offender could face imprisonment for up to two years, a fine or both.
Protecting victims from unwanted identification is an established concern in criminal justice. However, Clause 14(3) goes further by restricting the publication of material relating to court proceedings concerning relevant offences without prior judicial permission.
That provision could have significant implications for open justice and the media’s ability to report criminal proceedings.
Journalists would need clarity about the precise scope of the restriction, when permission is required and whether legitimate public-interest reporting would remain protected.
Without adequate safeguards, critics fear that reporting restrictions could make it more difficult for the public to scrutinise the handling of serious criminal cases.
Police Confessions and Past Associations Could Become Evidence
The Bill would also alter important evidentiary rules.
Under Clause 47, confessions made to police officers holding the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police or above could become admissible in criminal proceedings.
This represents a contentious departure from the ordinary legal restrictions governing confessions made to police officers.
Critics have warned that permitting police-recorded confessions could create incentives for coercive questioning unless accompanied by strong safeguards.
Clause 48 would allow certain statements recorded by a Magistrate, including statements made during identification parades, to be admitted where the person who made them has died or cannot be located.
Such statements could therefore be considered despite the witness being unavailable for cross-examination at trial.
Clause 50 would permit evidence concerning a person’s previous conduct and associations to be used in establishing alleged membership of an organised criminal group.
Taken together, the provisions raise questions about the reliability of evidence, the ability of accused persons to challenge prosecution testimony and the protection of the right to a fair trial.
Penalties of Up to 20 Years and Cross-Border Application
The proposed law defines serious crime by reference to offences carrying a maximum imprisonment term of at least four years, subject to the Bill’s qualifying provisions.
It would also apply to specified offences committed outside Sri Lanka where the relevant conditions are satisfied.
A person who, as a member of an organised criminal group, agrees with one or more persons to commit a serious offence for financial or other material benefit could face imprisonment of between five and 20 years and a fine of up to Rs. 1 million.
The Government argues that stronger legislation is necessary to confront sophisticated criminal organisations operating across national borders.
Cabinet approval to prepare the Bill was granted on March 30, 2026. The draft subsequently received the Attorney General’s clearance, and Cabinet approved its publication and presentation to Parliament in September.
Civil liberties organisations have nevertheless questioned whether the proposed measures go beyond what is required to comply with international obligations.
CPA has called for the Bill to be withdrawn, arguing that several provisions could weaken fundamental legal safeguards and reproduce features associated with the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The parliamentary process now offers an opportunity to examine those objections, clarify the scope of the proposed powers and determine whether additional safeguards are required.
For Sri Lanka, the central challenge is to establish legislation capable of prosecuting organised criminal networks without allowing exceptional investigative powers to become a source of arbitrary detention, excessive surveillance or restrictions on legitimate public scrutiny.
