Human Rights Watch says Sri Lanka’s proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill fails international standards and EU trade commitments, risking continued repression under a new name.

Sri Lanka’s government has tabled legislation intended to replace its long-criticised Prevention of Terrorism Act, but Human Rights Watch warned this week that the draft retains sweeping powers that have enabled serious human rights violations for nearly five decades. The Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, presented to Parliament on 6 October 2026, contains an overbroad definition of terrorism, limited judicial oversight of detention, and expansive authority for security forces and the executive to restrict speech, assembly, association and movement. Rights advocates say the measure falls short of United Nations benchmarks and the human rights conditions attached to Sri Lanka’s preferential trade access to the European Union.

The warning comes as President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s National People’s Power government seeks to fulfil a 2024 election pledge to abolish “all oppressive acts including the Prevention of Terrorism Act” and protect civil rights across the country. Yet the organisation argues the new bill largely repackages the old architecture of exceptional powers rather than dismantling it.

Decades of Abuse Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act

Enacted in 1979 as a temporary measure, the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been used to target Tamil and Muslim communities, journalists, human rights defenders and government critics. It has facilitated arbitrary detention, ill-treatment and torture while entrenching impunity. In 2017 Sri Lanka committed to repealing the law as a condition for the European Union to reinstate its GSP+ trade benefits, which link tariff preferences to human rights performance. Multiple reform attempts since 2018 have failed.

Despite the current government’s manifesto commitment, authorities continued to apply the PTA. In June 2026 it was used to arrest and detain Tamil hip-hop artist Sangeethan Ganeshkumar over a music video. Data shared with the United Nations by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka recorded 46 PTA-related detention cases in 2025 and a further 12 in the first three months of 2026. The law has at times been invoked in ordinary organised-crime cases that ordinary criminal statutes could address.

Earlier coverage on OneWorld SouthAsia documented the government’s earlier promise to scrap the PTA within 2026 and replace it with more targeted legislation.

Overbroad Definition of Terrorism Raises Free-Speech Fears

The draft bill defines terrorism in terms that include “unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act.” It also criminalises anyone who, with intention or knowledge, directly or indirectly induces others to commit or prepare for terrorism by distributing, circulating or providing access to a “terrorist publication.” Human Rights Watch notes that similar language under the PTA has been used repeatedly against journalists and social-media users.

The text does contain limited carve-outs: protest, advocacy, dissent, industrial action, and humanitarian or medical assistance will not by themselves constitute an offence. Rights groups argue these safeguards are insufficient given the breadth of other clauses and the history of selective enforcement against minority communities and critics.

Detention Powers and Weak Judicial Oversight

Under the bill, police, the armed forces and the coast guard may stop, search, question, enter premises and take suspects into custody without a warrant on the basis of “reasonable suspicion.” The inspector general of police or a deputy can obtain a detention order from the defence secretary for an initial two months, extendable up to one year. A magistrate cannot overturn the order. Using different provisions, a person could be held without charge for as long as two years.

Some procedural improvements appear. Magistrates may conduct unannounced visits to approved detention sites, interview detainees and order medical examinations if torture is suspected. An Independent Review Committee, appointed by the defence minister, must examine the necessity, legality and proportionality of a detention order within 30 days and make recommendations. Human Rights Watch questions the independence of a body appointed by the same executive branch that issues the orders.

Executive Powers to Restrict Movement and Association

The president would retain authority to proscribe organisations without prior judicial oversight. The defence secretary could designate any location a “prohibited place.” A deputy inspector general of police could seek a court order restricting an individual’s movement and communications for up to three months. Such powers, rights advocates say, create a chilling effect on legitimate civic activity.

These concerns echo broader patterns of surveillance and intimidation of civil society, particularly women human rights defenders in the north and east who seek answers about enforced disappearances, HRW says.

International Standards and Trade Implications

In 2021 United Nations human rights experts set out five prerequisites for any counter-terrorism law: a precise definition of terrorism consistent with international norms; robust safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of liberty; measures to prevent torture and enforced disappearance; and strong due-process and fair-trial guarantees including effective judicial oversight. Human Rights Watch concludes the present bill fails to meet these standards.

Non-compliance also puts Sri Lanka’s GSP+ status at risk. The European Union ties preferential market access to adherence to core human-rights conventions. Continued reliance on broadly framed security legislation has repeatedly drawn scrutiny at the UN Human Rights Council, where Sri Lanka has argued against indefinite country-specific mandates while facing ongoing criticism over accountability and civil liberties.

Calls for a Moratorium and Genuine Reform

Human Rights Watch urges the government to impose an immediate moratorium on use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act while comprehensively amending the new bill or drafting fresh legislation that meets international standards. “Sri Lanka has a grim history of misusing bad counterterrorism laws to commit serious human rights violations, and this bill would do little to stop that from happening again,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia director at the organisation. “The Sri Lankan Government should fulfil its international legal obligations and commitments to the EU and other international partners by legislating to end these abuses instead of simply repackaging the same abusive powers in new legislation.”

The bill’s first reading in Parliament marks only the start of a legislative process that will face intense domestic and international scrutiny. Civil-society organisations, legal professionals and minority communities are expected to press for substantial revisions. Whether the final law breaks with nearly half a century of exceptional powers, or merely rebrands them, will determine both the credibility of Sri Lanka’s reform agenda and the strength of its relationships with key trading and diplomatic partners.