Lanka terror bill sparks rights fears

By the Editorial Team · Tuesday, October 20, 2026

Sri Lanka has introduced the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill to replace its current anti-terrorism law, granting extensive powers to security forces that critics argue threaten fundamental freedoms, workers’ rights, and media independence. The bill’s potential to jeopardise Sri Lanka’s access to the EU’s GSP+ trade concession and trigger widespread protests has led to legal challenges and calls for its withdrawal before it requires parliamentary and public approval.

Sri Lanka’s proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTA), introduced as a replacement for the widely criticised Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), has prompted significant concerns from human rights groups, trade bodies, media organisations, and civil society over its potential impact on fundamental freedoms and economic relations.

Gazetted on September 22, the PSTA aims to update Sri Lanka’s counterterrorism framework but has drawn criticism for preserving expansive powers that critics say could undermine the rights of workers, restrict media freedom, and jeopardise international trade privileges. The Joint Apparel Association Forum (JAAF), representing a key sector employing roughly 140,000 workers in Sri Lanka’s free trade zones, warned that the Bill’s broad and unchecked authorities risk endangering the country’s eligibility for the European Union’s GSP+ trade concession. This preferential trade status, which facilitates duty-free access to European markets, is conditioned on Sri Lanka’s compliance with 27 international conventions encompassing human rights, labour standards, and environmental protection.

The JAAF highlighted provisions in the Bill that would allow security forces to stop, search, arrest, and detain individuals for up to 48 hours without requiring parliamentary renewal of those powers. Detention orders could be extended up to 72 hours before judicial review, with initial detention periods extending to two months and possible extensions up to one year. Such measures have raised fears that workers’ rights could be curtailed and labour-related activities, including strikes and protests, potentially criminalised under vague definitions of terrorism.

Workers in export processing zones expressed anxiety about the implications for job security and workplace conditions. Niroshani Manel, a factory worker in Katunayake Free Trade Zone, described concerns that the legislation might depress wages and restrain workers from advocating for fair treatment, emphasising the need for formal employment guarantees and protections, particularly as international scrutiny intensifies.

Rights activists have underscored that the proposed legislation’s language is broad and ambiguous, potentially classifying routine protests, public criticism, and trade union activities as terrorism offences. Transparency International Sri Lanka urged the government to withdraw the Bill, citing expanded executive powers, administrative detention, and possible infringements on fundamental freedoms.

Media organisations have taken legal action against the Bill, filing a petition with Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court on October 17 challenging its constitutionality. Members of the Free Media Movement contended that several sections criminalise withholding information in a way that threatens the confidentiality of sources and whistleblowers, critical for investigative journalism. They also argued that sweeping powers to conduct searches, arrests, and impose restricted zones could hinder media coverage of protests and alleged rights abuses, violating constitutional guarantees of equality, freedom of expression, and sovereignty.

Protests have taken place, including a demonstration by Christian clergy and nuns outside the Presidential Secretariat in Colombo on October 13. Participants accused the government of breaking campaign promises by introducing legislation viewed as repressive. Anglican priest Father Marimuthu Sakthivel characterised the opposition as a public fight against these laws.

The government has indicated that the Bill requires parliamentary approval by a two-thirds majority and must be ratified through a public referendum before enactment, underscoring the contentious nature of the proposed legislation amid ongoing national debate.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.