1Q1Sri Lankan Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara has stated that demands for a separate state or federal system are political expressions and cannot be considered terrorism, amid growing concerns over the proposed replacement for the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
The minister made the remarks during a television debate while responding to a question about how the sharing of information related to proscribed organisations would be addressed under the proposed new legislation.
Using a hypothetical example of a new organisation named “X” demanding a separate state, Nanayakkara explained that such a demand would be regarded as a political opinion rather than an act of terrorism. However, he noted that different provisions would apply in relation to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
His remarks come as the proposed replacement for the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979 was presented to Parliament for its first reading on October 6. The proposed legislation has drawn criticism from journalists, human rights organisations and Tamil political parties.
More than 240 civil society organisations have reportedly called for the complete abolition of the PTA without introducing a replacement law.
Concerns Over the Proposed Legislation
Although Section 3(4) of the proposed legislation states that protests or expressions of opinion alone are insufficient grounds to infer terrorism, critics argue that the provision does not explicitly prevent individuals from being prosecuted for terrorism-related offences in connection with such activities.
The distinction between stating that an act alone is insufficient to constitute terrorism and guaranteeing that peaceful political expression will never be criminalised remains a major concern among Tamil political activists.
Uncertainty Over LTTE-Related Restrictions
The continuation of restrictions on the LTTE and organisations such as the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation under the proposed legislation has also raised concerns.
Critics have questioned what specific provisions would apply to these organisations and at what point advocating for a separate state could be interpreted as supporting a proscribed organisation.
The concerns are rooted in the historical application of the PTA, which was made permanent in 1982 and granted authorities powers to arrest individuals without warrants and detain them for extended periods without charges.
The law initially targeted Tamil militant organisations but was subsequently used against peaceful Tamil political activists and others.
Sixth Amendment and Political Expression
The Sixth Amendment to Sri Lanka’s Constitution also remains a significant issue. Introduced in response to demands for Tamil Eelam, the amendment requires Members of Parliament to take an oath affirming the unitary state.
Advocating for or supporting a separate state is already restricted under the constitutional framework. Critics are therefore questioning the practical significance of the Justice Minister’s statement that such demands would not constitute terrorism under the proposed legislation.
Government’s Election Promise Under Scrutiny
The National People’s Power (NPP) government had pledged in its election manifesto to completely repeal the PTA. However, the introduction of a new anti-terrorism bill has raised questions about whether the government is fulfilling its commitment.
The proposed legislation also contains transitional provisions under which the date of implementation would be determined by the Minister of Defence, while offences committed before the new law comes into force would continue to be prosecuted under the existing legislation.
International Human Rights Obligations
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Sri Lanka is a party, recognises the right to self-determination and freedom of expression.
International human rights principles support the view that peaceful political demands, including calls for federalism or self-determination, should not be criminalised as terrorism in the absence of violence or other qualifying conduct.
However, Tamil rights advocates argue that verbal assurances from the government are insufficient.
They are calling for explicit legal safeguards within the proposed legislation to ensure that peaceful political expression and demands for self-determination cannot be used as grounds for terrorism-related prosecutions.
The debate over the proposed law continues to raise questions about the protection of political freedoms, particularly for Tamil communities, and whether the new legislation will provide sufficient safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism powers.
qq1
ea1¹~¹
About The Author
