The Sri Lankan government’s proposed new counterterrorism legislation allows wide scope for abuse and poses serious threats to human rights, said Amnesty International in a new legal analysis.
Despite some improvements on the previous white paper of the law issued in late 2025, the Protection of the State from Terrorism bill, which will replace the repressive and long-standing Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), retains an overly broad and ambiguous definition of terrorism that leaves room for arbitrary interpretation and the potential criminalization of dissent, protest, and the activities of civil society organizations.
The bill, which was tabled on 6 October, is now before the Supreme Court to check its compatibility with Sri Lanka’s Constitution. Depending on the Supreme Court’s determination, the law is set to be debated by Sri Lanka’s parliament in the coming weeks.
“Any attempt to revise a counterterror law which has time and time again been weaponized by the authorities against dissent, government critics, and minorities must be given the utmost scrutiny. The new bill must break with this legacy of abuse, not give the authorities new tools to silence dissent,” said Smriti Singh, Amnesty International’s South Asia Director.
“Sri Lanka’s history of abusing such legislation makes robust, enforceable safeguards essential, and these remain inadequately addressed in the bill, sparking serious human rights concerns.”
In addition to the overbroad definition of terrorism, the bill permits detention for up to one year without charge, alongside the possibility of up to one year of pretrial detention – a cumulation of two years in detention even before the start of a trial. This breaches the right to be free from arbitrary detention, the presumption of innocence, and the right to be tried within a reasonable time.
“Allowing a person to be detained for up to a year before being charged, with the prospect of a further year in pretrial detention, raises grave concerns about arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial. No one should have to spend years in detention while the state delays bringing a case to trial,” said Smriti Singh.
“We urge Sri Lanka’s parliament to withdraw this bill and reform the law in line with international human rights law and standards. Until this is done, the PTA should not be misused further.”
Amnesty International is calling on Sri Lanka’s authorities to reform the law using key benchmarks provided to Sri Lanka by UN special rapporteurs to enable substantive reform of the PTA.
Offence of terrorism remains too broad
The bill’s definition of terrorism is narrower compared with the bill’s earlier draft and incorporates additional safeguards. For example, the initial draft criminalized certain acts done with the purpose of “infringing on the sovereignty of Sri Lanka”, without a clear definition of what would constitute such intent. This has been removed in the updated bill, which is welcome.
However, Amnesty International is concerned that the offence of terrorism, as drafted in the bill, remains too broad and falls below the standards required under international law.
Firstly, section 3(4) of the bill does not expressly exclude protests, advocacy, dissent, industrial action, or humanitarian and medical assistance from the scope of terrorism offences. Instead, it merely states that such conduct is not, by itself, sufficient to establish the required elements of an offence. This caveat falls short of a clear safeguard as it leaves room for broad interpretation. The law should clearly state that protected activities, such as protests and advocacy, cannot be treated as terrorism offences.
Secondly, Amnesty International does not consider that offences only causing a “likelihood” of “substantial economic loss”, as laid down in the new bill, meet the high hurt threshold required for an offence to constitute terrorism.
Significant human rights issues persist
The tabled bill introduces various new safeguards compared to the 2025 white paper. These include judicial oversight of any attempt by the Executive to proscribe an organization and the establishment of a review committee to examine the legality of detention orders. However, the committee’s members will be appointed by the Minister of Defence, a member of the cabinet, raising serious questions about its independence.
“A review committee appointed by a minister cannot provide the necessary assurance of independent scrutiny of detention orders. It is the criminal justice system, with the safeguards of a fair criminal trial, that should determine whether a person is guilty of a crime and should be sentenced,” said Smriti Singh.
Other human rights concerns around the bill raised previously by Amnesty International remain. These include the extension of police powers to armed forces and coast guards; as well as provisions permitting the Attorney General, with High Court approval, to defer prosecutions or suspend trials for up to 20 years in certain cases. Rather than proceeding to trial, suspects may agree to conditions such as apologies or reparations, while remaining exposed to the prospect of prosecution for decades. This raises concerns regarding accountability, victims’ right to justice, and the right of accused persons to legal certainty and a timely determination of criminal charges.
Background
The PTA has historically been used to target minorities, civic dissent and has continued being misused by the current administration for prolonged detention of drug-related crime suspects. The PTA, which the current government pledged to repeal, is not only still in the books, but still very much in use (OHCHR received information from the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka that it had been notified of 46 PTA-related detention cases in 2025 and 12 cases as of March 2026), despite calls for a moratorium.
Amnesty has consistently called for the repeal of the PTA and a moratorium on the use of the act in the meantime. The organization raised concerns about the earlier draft of the Protection of the State from Terrorism bill in March 2026.