The United Nations human rights office has urged Sri Lanka to substantially redraft its proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism (PSTA) Bill before enactment, warning that the legislation retains serious deficiencies associated with the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), including risks of arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearance and restrictions on freedom of expression.
In preliminary comments published on 13 October 2026, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said the Bill, gazetted on 22 September, contains several improvements over earlier drafts but continues to include provisions that risk violating Sri Lanka’s obligations under international human rights law and domestic constitutional guarantees. The assessment calls for stronger judicial oversight, narrower definitions of terrorism, tighter limits on executive powers and effective remedies for rights violations.
OHCHR welcomed the Government’s stated intention to repeal the PTA and replace it with legislation consistent with international human rights standards. Compared with the December 2025 draft, the current Bill narrows aspects of the terrorism definition, removes several ordinary crimes from the list of terrorist acts, excludes confessions to police as admissible evidence, introduces safeguards for some journalistic and civil society activities, and removes recklessness from inducement and publication offences. It also introduces necessity and proportionality requirements for certain restrictive orders, mandates audio-visual recording of police interviews and statements before a Magistrate, and provides for a central database of arrests and case outcomes.
However, the office said these changes do not adequately address the risks created by broad criminal offences, extensive law-enforcement powers and insufficiently constrained executive discretion. It warned that the proposed framework could reproduce or expand shortcomings previously identified in the PTA and earlier counter-terrorism proposals, including the 2023 draft Anti-Terrorism Bill.
A central concern is the definition of terrorism under section 3. Although the revised Bill focuses on intentional violent acts resulting in serious outcomes, such as death, grievous hurt or hostage-taking, OHCHR considers parts of the definition excessively broad and imprecise. In particular, the alternative use of “knowingly” rather than requiring specific intent, and the undefined concept of “unduly compelling” a government or international organisation, could expose individuals to arbitrary enforcement.
The office also questioned provisions covering property, environmental, electronic, cultural and communications-related harm, as well as “substantial economic loss” and the “likelihood of danger to life”. It argued that these categories extend beyond conduct that should qualify as terrorism and could allow ordinary criminal offences to be prosecuted under counter-terrorism legislation.
Safeguards intended to protect protests, advocacy, dissent, strikes, industrial action and humanitarian or medical assistance do not expressly exclude such conduct from terrorist offences. Instead, section 3(4) provides that these activities are not, by themselves, sufficient evidence of the required criminal intent. OHCHR said the provision should be strengthened to ensure that protected activities cannot be criminalised under the law.
Concerns also extend to speech-related offences. The Bill’s definition of “confidential information” includes information about the movements or whereabouts of specified individuals and material considered likely to adversely affect national security or defence. OHCHR warned that the breadth of the definition could expose journalists, researchers and civil society organisations to prosecution for documenting security operations, arrests or detention sites. Although the Bill introduces a public-interest safeguard, it does not expressly protect journalistic sources, legal professional privilege or human rights monitoring.
Sections 9 and 10, covering inducement to terrorism and terrorist publications, also contain terms such as “inducing” and “useful” material that the office considers insufficiently precise. The provisions do not require proof that the conduct created an actual risk of a terrorist offence being committed. Their potential extraterritorial application could also expose people abroad, including members of Sri Lankan diaspora communities, to prosecution for lawful expression and documentation concerning public-interest matters in Sri Lanka.
The proposed detention framework presents another major concern. Under sections 27 and 28, the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence could authorise detention for up to two months at a time, subject to an aggregate maximum of one year. Extensions beyond the initial two months require High Court approval, suspects must be brought before a Magistrate at least every 14 days, and an Independent Review Committee is established to assess detention orders. Nevertheless, OHCHR said the initial decision remains with the executive rather than an independent court.
The Bill also requires a Magistrate to give effect to an initial detention order and makes remand mandatory in specified circumstances, limiting judicial discretion to assess individual cases. A maximum remand period of one year raises further concerns about prolonged pre-trial detention and the presumption of innocence. Under the proposed arrangements, suspects may be produced before a Magistrate up to 48 hours after a police arrest or 72 hours after an arrest by the armed forces, owing to the permitted transfer period.
OHCHR said every deprivation of liberty should be subject to prompt, independent and effective judicial scrutiny, with courts empowered to assess the legality, necessity and proportionality of detention and order release where appropriate. It recommended that suspects ordinarily be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours, regardless of the authority responsible for arrest.
The extension of arrest, search and detention powers to the armed forces and coast guard in specified circumstances has prompted additional concerns. Section 24 requires suspects arrested by these personnel to be transferred to the police as soon as possible and within 24 hours, excluding travel time. During that period, the Bill does not expressly guarantee immediate access to a lawyer, private medical examination, recorded questioning or direct judicial oversight.
The office warned that these gaps could increase the risk of coercion, torture, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance. It also said the legislation fails to establish sufficiently clear chains of command, reporting arrangements and disciplinary authority when military personnel exercise law-enforcement powers. OHCHR called for civilian police primacy and insisted that any military involvement must remain exceptional, operate under clear civilian authority and be subject to ordinary criminal jurisdiction and effective accountability.
Executive powers elsewhere in the Bill also require tighter controls. The President could proscribe organisations on “reasonable grounds” that they are involved in offences under the Act, while restriction orders could limit individuals’ movements, travel, communications and associations without a criminal charge or conviction. Although some orders are subject to time limits and judicial review, the office warned that proscription could continue indefinitely and restriction orders could be renewed without an overall limit.
The Bill also permits certain public-order directions restricting movement and gatherings, including measures that could operate for up to 24 hours before judicial approval in urgent circumstances. OHCHR said such powers must be governed by precise legal thresholds, written reasons, proportionality requirements and prompt independent review.
Finally, the office highlighted section 73, which would preserve pending PTA proceedings under the repealed Act, including existing procedural and evidentiary rules, regulations and proscriptions. It warned that repeal could therefore leave important elements of the previous framework intact unless every pending detention, prosecution and restriction is reviewed against human rights standards.
OHCHR urged the Government to conduct a comprehensive review involving independent institutions, civil society organisations, legal professionals, affected communities and other stakeholders before proceeding with the legislation. It also called for explicit safeguards against torture and enforced disappearance, confidential access to legal counsel from the outset of custody, independent interpretation services, stronger bail and fair-trial protections, narrower immunity provisions and effective compensation for wrongful arrest or detention.
The office said it remained ready to continue dialogue with the Government and provide technical assistance towards developing counter-terrorism legislation consistent with international human rights law and applicable international counter-terrorism standards.
