The Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) has accused President Anura Kumara Dissanayake of drawing public attention to selected provisions of the proposed Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill while leaving what it describes as the legislation’s most dangerous elements unaddressed.
FSP Education Secretary Pubudu Jayagoda made the accusation at a press conference on Friday (6), responding to the President’s remarks a day earlier. He described the Government’s proposed concessions as cosmetic changes that diverted attention from what he said was a fundamental departure from established principles of criminal law.
Speaking at a special interfaith convention on Thursday marking one year of the national anti-drug operation, Ratama Ekata, Dissanayake said the Government would reduce the period during which a suspect could be held before being produced before a magistrate from 72 hours to 48 hours. He also said provisions concerning tattoos and offences under the Excise Ordinance would be removed, adding that the Government was prepared to discuss the legislation with human rights organisations.
Jayagoda argued that the proposed changes did not address the bill’s underlying approach to arrest and detention. Under existing law, he said, an individual could be arrested only on reasonable suspicion of having committed an actual criminal offence. The proposed legislation, however, relied on characteristics, appearance and associations as grounds for arrest.
He specifically cited Clause 4(2), which he said covered internet communications, knowing association with gang members, dress, gestures, slang and frequenting particular locations. Jayagoda argued that the definitions were deliberately vague, allowing authorities to interpret them in ways that could be used against individuals.
He also questioned the attention given to reducing the initial detention period from 72 to 48 hours, saying this obscured the more extensive detention powers contained in Clauses 20 and 21. According to him, these provisions would allow detention orders to be issued for periods of up to two months and renewed for a maximum of one year.
Under Clause 23, he argued, a magistrate would have no discretion to release a suspect on bail once a detention order had been issued. “The powers belonging to the Judiciary have been hijacked by the Executive,” he said, arguing that magistrates would be unable to release individuals even where sufficient grounds for arrest were absent.
Jayagoda also questioned the process through which the Government was proposing amendments in response to public criticism. “You include a provision for 72 hours, and when people protest, you make it 48. Tomorrow you might ask, ‘Shall we make it 24?'” he said, questioning who had drafted the bill and who would take responsibility for its provisions.
He further alleged that the removal of offences under the Excise Ordinance benefited liquor manufacturers who had challenged the legislation before the Supreme Court, claiming that some of them had financed the National People’s Power. He noted that offences under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance and the Intellectual Property Act remained in the proposed legislation.
The President, he added, had not addressed the separate Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, which he said should be discarded alongside the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill is currently before the Supreme Court, which began hearing 26 petitions challenging it on Wednesday (4). During the proceedings, President’s Counsel Romesh De Silva, appearing for petitioner Malinda Seneviratne, argued that the bill contradicted the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. He also challenged its definition of “serious crime”, which he said could encompass an intellectual property offence carrying a six-month prison sentence or a fine of Rs. 500,000, and questioned the proposed detention powers of the Secretary of Defence.
President’s Counsel Saliya Pieris, appearing for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, challenged Clause 14(3), arguing that it could criminalise the publication of information about proceedings involving serious crimes without court permission, restricting journalists’ ability to report on such cases. Attorney-at-Law Suren Fernando separately argued that Clause 19(4) would leave magistrates with no option but to remand suspects in certain circumstances, effectively reducing them to a “rubber stamp”. Both counsel argued that the legislation required approval at a referendum.
