By Dwayne Ferreira
Former Justice Minister challenges sweeping detention powers, vague terrorism definitions and executive authority as proposed legislation faces constitutional scrutiny.
COLOMBO — Former Justice Minister and President’s Counsel Ali Sabry has raised serious concerns over Sri Lanka’s proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, warning that its provisions could expose citizens to prolonged detention, restrict freedom of expression and place excessive powers in the hands of the executive.
His objections, presented before the Supreme Court during constitutional challenges to the legislation, raise a fundamental question: can a law intended to protect national security also become an instrument for suppressing legitimate dissent?
Sabry, appearing on behalf of former minister Professor G. L. Peiris, acknowledged the importance of protecting the country against terrorism. However, he argued that safeguarding the state must not come at the expense of innocent citizens’ constitutional rights.
Two Years in Detention Before Trial
Among Sabry’s most significant objections was the possibility that a person suspected of terrorism could spend up to two years in custody before trial.
According to reports of his Supreme Court submissions, the proposed legislation could permit detention for one year, followed by a further year on remand.
This raises serious questions about the presumption of innocence and whether individuals could lose substantial periods of their lives without their guilt being established.
Amnesty International has independently identified the same cumulative detention risk in its analysis of the Bill, warning that prolonged detention without charge or trial could violate fundamental human rights protections.
When Does Dissent Become Terrorism?
Sabry also challenged the proposed definition of terrorism, arguing that its broad and potentially ambiguous language could allow activities not ordinarily regarded as terrorism to be treated as criminal offences.
He questioned whether definitions borrowed from countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand were appropriate for Sri Lanka, given the country’s history of allegations that security legislation has been misused.
The distinction is particularly important in a democracy where protests, political criticism, trade union activity and public demonstrations form part of legitimate civic participation.
Amnesty International has similarly warned that the proposed definition does not provide sufficiently explicit protection for peaceful protest, advocacy and dissent.
The concern is not that every protest would automatically become a terrorist offence, but that broadly drafted provisions could leave too much room for interpretation and misuse.
Executive Powers and Judicial Oversight
Another central objection concerns the authority granted to the executive.
Sabry reportedly challenged Clause 51 of the Bill, arguing that it could allow authorities to prohibit meetings, press conferences and other activities considered threats to national security.
He maintained that decisions affecting fundamental freedoms should be subject to judicial supervision rather than left principally to executive discretion.
The issue goes beyond any single government.
Legislation granting extensive powers to state authorities can remain in force long after the administration that introduced it has left office.
That makes the strength of judicial safeguards particularly important.
Sri Lanka’s Experience With Anti-Terror Laws
Sri Lanka’s existing Prevention of Terrorism Act has faced longstanding criticism from domestic and international human rights organisations.
The legislation has been associated with allegations of arbitrary detention, prolonged imprisonment and the misuse of national security powers.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, Sabry reportedly referred to the arrests of two Tamil youths following the 2018 Vavunathivu police killings. Subsequent investigations connected the killings to individuals associated with the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks.
The example highlighted the danger of treating suspicion as proof and the consequences that mistaken accusations can have for innocent people.
Government Defends Its Intentions
The government’s position must also be considered.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, Additional Solicitor General Nerin Pulle informed the court that the government did not intend to curtail freedom of expression through the proposed legislation.
The Bill also contains safeguards that were not present in earlier drafts, including additional provisions relating to judicial oversight and detention review.
However, critics argue that these safeguards remain insufficient, particularly where the independence of review mechanisms and the extent of executive discretion are concerned.
A Constitutional Test With Lasting Consequences
The Supreme Court proceedings followed 25 petitions challenging the constitutionality of the proposed legislation.
The challenges have brought renewed attention to the balance between national security, individual liberty and the authority of the judiciary.
For Sri Lanka, the consequences extend well beyond the immediate debate surrounding terrorism.
A law that allows lengthy detention or restrictions on public expression must contain safeguards strong enough to prevent those powers from being used against people who have committed no terrorist offence.
The central warning emerging from Sabry’s arguments is that national security legislation must be judged not only by what it allows the state to do against genuine terrorists, but also by how effectively it protects innocent citizens from the misuse of those same powers.
A country can strengthen its security without weakening the constitutional freedoms it exists to protect.
Watch: Ali Sabry Warns Against Arbitrary Detention Under PSTA
In a televised discussion shared on Facebook, former Justice Minister Ali Sabry, PC, raises concerns about the proposed anti-terrorism legislation and its implications for judicial oversight.
Watch the video for more on his arguments, including concerns that magistrates could be left powerless under the proposed law.
