COLOMBO — Amnesty International, the Human Rights Commission and the Bar Association warn that proposed powers of detention, surveillance and police interrogation could undermine constitutional safeguards and revive abuses associated with the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Amnesty International has called on the Sri Lankan Government to withdraw its proposed Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill in its entirety, warning that the legislation would give police and executive authorities extensive powers of detention, interrogation, surveillance and criminal investigation while weakening safeguards against torture and arbitrary arrest.
In a statement issued on October 27, the international human rights organisation criticised provisions permitting suspects to be held for up to two years without trial, allowing certain confessions made to senior police officers to be admitted as evidence and restricting media coverage of criminal proceedings.
The proposed legislation also permits warrantless searches in specified circumstances, provides for access to telecommunications and digital records without prior judicial authorisation, and creates criminal penalties for failing to supply information to investigating officers.
Amnesty’s intervention follows objections from the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), both of which have urged the Government to withdraw the Bill and reconsider its provisions.
The legislation was published in the Gazette on October 6 and formally presented to Parliament on October 20, 2026. It remains at the First Reading stage and has not become law.
Amnesty Warns of a Return to PTA-Style Powers
Amnesty International’s South Asia Director Smriti Singh described the proposed legislation as an exceptionally serious threat to civil liberties under the National People’s Power (NPP) administration.
She argued that the Bill reproduces some of the most contentious features of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), which has faced longstanding criticism over prolonged detention, alleged torture and the treatment of detainees.
Unlike the PTA, which concerns terrorism-related offences, the proposed law would apply special investigative procedures to a wider range of offences committed in connection with organised criminal groups.
Amnesty warned that provisions already controversial under counterterrorism legislation could consequently become part of the ordinary criminal justice framework.
The organisation specifically criticised the proposed detention arrangements, admissibility of statements obtained during police interrogation and restrictions on judicial oversight.
It also warned that the legislation could revive conditions associated with abuses previously documented under the PTA.
Singh called for the Government to abandon the current draft and undertake meaningful public consultation before introducing replacement legislation.
Amnesty Calls for Withdrawal of Sri Lanka’s Organised Crime Bill
Amnesty International has demanded the complete withdrawal of Sri Lanka’s proposed Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill, warning that it would grant extensive powers to police and executive authorities while weakening fundamental rights protections.
Detention and Confessions
The organisation says suspects could be held for up to two years without trial. It also objects to provisions admitting certain confessions made to senior police officers as evidence and placing the burden of proving coercion on accused persons.
Privacy and Police Powers
The Bill would permit warrantless searches in specified circumstances and access to telecommunications records, subscriber details and device location data without prior court authorisation.
Amnesty warns that these powers could threaten journalists’ sources, confidential legal communications and the privacy of people involved in lawful activities.
Appearance and Association
The proposed law would allow courts to consider clothing, tattoos, hand signs, language, associations and locations visited when assessing membership of organised criminal groups.
Amnesty says these provisions could encourage discriminatory profiling and arbitrary detention.
Other Legal Objections
The statement also criticises restrictions on media reporting of proceedings and penalties of up to seven years’ imprisonment for failing to provide information required by investigating authorities.
Amnesty draws comparisons between the proposed framework and controversial provisions of Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Call for Withdrawal
Amnesty International’s South Asia Director, Smriti Singh, has urged the Government to withdraw the Bill completely and consult the public on alternative ways to combat organised crime while respecting human rights.
Editorial summary of Amnesty International’s original statement. This is not the full article. Read the source using the link below.
Two Years of Detention Without Trial
One of Amnesty’s principal objections concerns the length of time suspects could remain in custody before their cases are determined by a court.
Under the proposed framework, a person accused of membership in an organised criminal group could face up to one year of detention before charges are filed, followed by another year in pretrial detention.
The combined period could therefore extend to two years without a completed criminal trial.
The provisions have prompted concerns that prolonged detention could undermine the presumption of innocence and place considerable pressure on suspects before the prosecution has established its case.
The HRCSL has also questioned the Bill’s proposed system of detention orders, particularly the authority given to executive officials and limitations imposed on magistrates.
According to the Commission, Clause 20 would restrict the ability of magistrates to exercise independent judgment when considering detention orders, remand and the release of suspects.
Such restrictions could affect the judicial protections associated with Article 13 of the Constitution.
The Commission emphasised that judicial officers must retain meaningful authority to examine the grounds for detention and protect individuals against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Police Confessions and the Risk of Coercion
Another controversial provision concerns the admissibility of confessions made to police officers.
Clause 47 would permit confessions made to officers holding at least the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police to be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings.
The HRCSL has warned that the provision closely resembles Section 16 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Human rights organisations argue that allowing statements obtained during police interrogation to be used as evidence, particularly where suspects face prolonged detention, could increase the risk of coercion, torture and other ill-treatment.
Amnesty also criticised provisions that would place the burden on accused persons to establish that a confession resulted from torture or other abuse.
This differs from the broader principle that the prosecution must prove a criminal charge.
The proposed arrangement concerns the burden of establishing coercion in relation to disputed statements; it should not be interpreted as transferring the entire burden of proving every element of a criminal offence to the accused.
Nevertheless, critics argue that requiring detainees to demonstrate that abuse occurred could seriously weaken protections against involuntary confessions.
Amnesty further raised concerns about provisions permitting certain statements made before a magistrate to be admitted where the person who made them cannot subsequently be cross-examined because they have died or cannot be located.
Such arrangements could limit an accused person’s opportunity to challenge important evidence.
The organisation also questioned provisions allowing indictments to be altered during trial where an organised crime charge cannot be sustained but an ordinary criminal offence may still be alleged.
Warrantless Searches and Access to Private Communications
The proposed legislation would expand police powers to search premises and obtain information connected with suspected organised criminal activity.
Amnesty warned that police could be permitted to conduct searches without judicial warrants and obtain personal information directly from telecommunications, satellite and digital service providers.
The information potentially available includes subscriber identities, call records and device location details.
These powers have prompted concerns about surveillance and the protection of private communications.
Journalists could face risks to the confidentiality of their sources, while lawyers and other professionals may have concerns about information normally protected by legal or professional privilege.
Individuals involved in lawful public assemblies could also be exposed to scrutiny if communications and location records were obtained without effective judicial supervision.
The precise circumstances in which police could exercise these powers would depend on the final wording of the legislation.
Amnesty’s central objection is that the proposed safeguards are insufficient to prevent abuse.
The BASL has similarly warned that the Bill would confer extensive investigative authority on executive and law enforcement officials while reducing judicial oversight at critical stages.
Criminal Liability for Refusing to Provide Information
The Bill would also introduce penalties for individuals who fail to provide information required by police in connection with organised crime investigations.
According to Amnesty International, the proposed offence could carry imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine of up to Rs. 200,000, with the legislation potentially allowing both forms of punishment.
The organisation warned that the information obligation could extend to material normally protected by legal privilege.
Such a requirement could create difficult questions concerning confidentiality between lawyers and clients, particularly where information obtained during professional legal representation becomes relevant to a police investigation.
The power to compel information also raises questions about the boundaries between a legitimate duty to assist criminal investigations and an individual’s right not to be subjected to arbitrary or excessive demands.
Amnesty has called for any information-gathering powers to be defined precisely and subjected to appropriate legal safeguards.
Clothing, Tattoos and Associations Could Be Used as Evidence
The Bill defines an organised criminal group as a structured association of at least three persons acting together over a period to obtain financial or other material benefits.
Such definitions are intended to identify criminal networks whose activities involve cooperation among several individuals.
However, the proposed legislation also identifies a range of circumstantial factors that courts may consider when determining whether a person belongs to an organised criminal group.
These include:
- Clothing or styles of dress associated with known members of an organised criminal group.
- Hand signs, language or tattoos associated with the group.
- Visits to locations known to be used by organised criminal organisations.
- Previous conduct and associations relevant to alleged group membership.
Amnesty warned that reliance on such characteristics could encourage discriminatory profiling and arbitrary arrests.
Its concern is that people could come under suspicion because of their appearance, personal relationships or the places they visit, even where evidence of individual criminal wrongdoing is limited.
The Bill would permit courts to consider these factors as evidence; it does not expressly establish that clothing or tattoos alone automatically prove criminal guilt.
Nevertheless, human rights advocates argue that loosely defined indicators of group membership can create substantial risks when combined with broad police powers.
The organisation maintains that criminal responsibility must be established through objective evidence of individual involvement in conduct clearly prohibited by law.
Human Rights Commission Says Bill Could Be More Repressive Than PTA
The HRCSL raised its objections in a communication to the Minister of Justice and National Integration dated October 21.
The Commission acknowledged that organised criminal activity can seriously affect public safety and the rights of victims, including women, children and witnesses.
It also recognised the need for legislation capable of supporting effective investigations and prosecutions.
However, the Commission concluded that several provisions of the draft were incompatible with constitutional fundamental rights guarantees and Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations.
Its concerns included the broad definition of serious crime, executive detention orders, the admissibility of police confessions and restrictions on magistrates’ discretion.
The HRCSL warned that the proposed framework could be more restrictive than the PTA in certain respects and called for the Bill to be withdrawn and substantially revised.
Its assessment strengthens the constitutional concerns raised by Amnesty because it comes from Sri Lanka’s national human rights institution rather than solely from an international advocacy organisation.
Bar Association Demands Greater Judicial Oversight
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has also criticised the proposed organised crime legislation alongside the Government’s separate Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill.
In its October 22 statement, the BASL warned that the two legislative proposals would expand powers of arrest, detention and surveillance while reducing judicial scrutiny.
The association raised concerns about the implications for freedom of association, expression and movement.
It called for the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill to be withdrawn and for any replacement to undergo meaningful public consultation.
The BASL also urged that future legislation remain consistent with the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and preserve effective judicial authorisation and oversight.
Its objections extend to proposed counterterrorism legislation intended to replace the PTA, with the association seeking safeguards against the excessive use of executive detention powers.
The growing criticism reflects concern that separate laws introduced to address financial crime, terrorism and organised criminal activity could collectively expand state powers without providing adequate protection for individual liberties.
Amnesty has separately highlighted amendments to legislation concerning financial transactions, terrorist financing and money laundering, which civil society organisations have criticised over potential effects on freedom of expression and association.
Government Says Bill Is Intended to Combat Serious Crime
The Government’s stated purpose in introducing the Bill is to strengthen Sri Lanka’s ability to prevent, investigate and prosecute organised crime.
According to the Cabinet decision announced in September, the legislation was prepared to give effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and improve national and international cooperation against serious criminal networks.
Cabinet approval to prepare the legislation was granted on March 30, 2026.
The Legal Draftsman’s Department subsequently prepared the Bill, which received the Attorney General’s clearance before being approved for publication in the Gazette and submission to Parliament.
The Government has presented the measure as part of its response to the threats posed by organised criminal groups.
Combating such networks is a legitimate public safety objective, particularly where criminal organisations engage in violence, trafficking, intimidation or other serious offences.
The dispute concerns whether the proposed investigative powers are proportionate to that objective and adequately protected against misuse.
Amnesty, the HRCSL and the BASL argue that effective action against organised crime must remain subject to constitutional guarantees and independent judicial supervision.
Parliament Faces Calls to Withdraw and Redraft Bill
The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill remains before Parliament, where its provisions may be subjected to further scrutiny.
The growing criticism from national and international legal and human rights organisations places particular attention on the proposed detention regime, admissibility of confessions, access to private information and protection of judicial independence.
Amnesty International is calling for complete withdrawal of the current Bill and a fresh legislative process involving meaningful consultation.
The HRCSL and BASL have likewise demanded withdrawal and reform to ensure compatibility with constitutional protections.
The Government has maintained that stronger legal mechanisms are needed to address organised criminal networks.
The question now facing lawmakers is whether those objectives can be achieved through narrower investigative powers, clearer definitions and stronger judicial safeguards.
Until Parliament determines the Bill’s future, the powers contained in the proposal remain unenacted.
The outcome will determine whether Sri Lanka adopts a new framework for prosecuting organised crime or returns to the drafting process to address the fundamental rights objections raised by the country’s legal profession and human rights institutions.
