Sri Lankan clergy and activists urge withdrawal of new anti-terrorism bill, warning it endangers freedom, privacy, and democratic rights.
Newsroom (08/01/2026 Gaudium Press ) When Sri Lankan Justice Ministry unveiled the draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA) in December 2025, officials described it as a modern framework to replace the country’s infamous 1979 Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). But as new details emerged, alarm spread swiftly across churches, rights groups, and civil society.
On January 7, thirty-seven Catholic priests, three nuns, and eight human rights activists jointly appealed to the government to withdraw the proposed anti-terrorism law, calling it a rebranded version of an old instrument of repression. The signatories warned that the new bill, if passed, would endanger freedoms the government had promised to defend while seeking election.
A Familiar Shadow in New Language
For decades, Sri Lanka’s PTA has served as a byword for state overreach. Adopted as a temporary emergency measure in 1979, it later became permanent, empowering authorities to conduct warrantless arrests and prolonged detentions of up to 18 months. International watchdogs have repeatedly cited the law’s misuse against Tamil and Muslim minorities, journalists, and political opponents.
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has long urged Sri Lanka to repeal the PTA entirely, and in its 60th session, it passed a resolution demanding reforms: repeal of emergency laws, independent investigations into abuses, and greater minority participation in justice. Yet, Colombo resisted.
The clergy’s recent appeal reflects deep frustration with the government’s continued reliance on such powers, despite pledges of reform. “Its political stand, solemnly guaranteed as an electoral promise to repeal oppressive laws and to assure freedom, is contrasted with its intention to retain the PTA’s coercive power and enlarge state authority,” the joint statement read.
Religious Voices Condemn Silence
Among the most outspoken critics is Rev. Sherard Jayawardena of the Archdiocese of Colombo. Speaking to UCA News, Jayawardena accused both the ruling party and opposition of hypocrisy. “After numerical minorities, those most affected by the PTA are from the party that represents the present government,” he said. “The God who looks for justice and righteousness will not endorse such laws.”
He urged the government to withdraw the bill immediately, warning that further backsliding on civil liberties would erode moral credibility and reignite distrust between the state and its citizens.
Allegations of Political Retaliation
Opponents of the draft law argue that it extends surveillance and detention powers under vague definitions of “terrorism.” They fear it could be used selectively against dissenters, as the PTA often was.
Recent cases underscore these concerns. Liyaudeen Mohamed Rusdi, a young Muslim man, was detained for two weeks in March 2025 merely for displaying a Gaza protest sticker—an action later ruled illegal by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, which recommended compensation. Tamil activist A. Mariathas recounted how Manoharan Kajendroopan was arrested for posting an image of a former LTTE leader on Facebook. In another instance, photojournalist Kanapathipillai Kumanan was questioned in August for reporting on mass graves in Chemmani, in northern Sri Lanka.
Such episodes, critics argue, reveal a state apparatus unwilling to relinquish the power to silence uncomfortable voices.
Official Response and Growing Resistance
Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara has defended the government’s approach, noting that the draft PSTA is open for public comment until February 28, a move he said reflects transparency. But opposition from key civil and professional groups is mounting.
The Sri Lanka Professional Journalists Association condemned the law as a threat to democracy and press freedom, warning that it could return the nation to “dark historical times.” Meanwhile, Duminda Nagamuwa, a national executive member of the People’s Struggle Alliance, described the proposal as “a mortal blow to democracy,” arguing that it replaces one set of repressive tools with another.
Promise Versus Power
At its heart, the debate over Sri Lanka’s new anti-terror bill is not just a legal contest but a moral one. The country’s clergy and civil rights advocates see in it the reincarnation of policies that once deepened divisions and stifled dissent. By demanding a full withdrawal rather than revision, they signal growing public impatience with symbolic reform and insist on genuine structural change.
For many, the government’s credibility now rests on a single question: will it honor its promises to protect democracy—or preserve the machinery of fear it vowed to dismantle?
- Raju Hasmukh with files from UCA News
Related Images:
