The Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) has raised concerns that the proposed Prevention of Organised Crime legislation, recently introduced to Parliament, could be used to suppress dissent rather than solely target organised crime. Speaking at a media briefing at the party’s office in Nugegoda, FSP Education Secretary Pubudu Jayagoda criticized the bill’s broad definitions and provisions, suggesting they may enable arbitrary enforcement and infringe on civil liberties.

The Prevention of Organised Crime Bill, gazetted on October 6, was presented alongside the proposed State Terrorism Bill (PSTB) and the 22nd Amendment, which Jayagoda said should be considered collectively as part of the government’s approach to curtailing civil rights. Specifically, he highlighted the bill’s expansive definition of an “organised criminal group” as any structured group of three or more persons acting together over time to commit serious offences for material gain. The legislation defines a “serious offence” as one carrying a prison sentence of four years or more; the list of such offences includes a range of acts from obstructing a police officer and theft to copyright infringement, unlicensed gambling, and certain violations under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance.

Jayagoda further criticized Section 4(2) for permitting identification of individuals as members of organised criminal groups based on physical appearance, such as clothing, gestures, language, or tattoos, raising concerns about potential profiling and arbitrary arrests. He questioned whether youths with long hair or tattoos might become targets under these criteria.

Several other provisions drew his scrutiny due to their implications for personal liberty. Section 20(1) would allow police to detain suspects for up to 72 hours without requiring their appearance before a Magistrate. Under Section 21, the Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security (or the relevant ministry overseeing police) could issue detention orders of two months at a time, extendable up to a year, upon police request. Additionally, Section 23 would remove the Magistrate’s authority to grant bail to those arrested under the bill, and Section 25 would enable suspects remanded by court to be held in isolation at police stations for up to six months. Jayagoda also condemned Section 47, which permits the admissibility of confessions made to police as evidence, effectively reinstating a controversial provision.

Jayagoda accused the government of attempting to foster a climate of fear and called for a critical examination of the bills beyond their official titles, urging the public not to be misled by their presentation. In reference to a recent police social media campaign advising citizens to “think twice” before speaking, he questioned the government’s commitment to freedom of expression. The FSP has pledged to oppose what it views as measures designed to suppress public dissent, urging people to resist enactment of the proposed laws.