Sri Lanka's New Terrorism Bill Keeps Abusive Powers

Sri Lanka's new terrorism bill arrives in Parliament today, October 6, 2026, carrying a promise that critics say it cannot keep. The legislation is meant to replace a counterterrorism law that has been in force since 1979, a statute that Human Rights Watch has blamed for decades of arbitrary detention, ill-treatment and torture. But according to the rights group, the proposed replacement keeps many of the same abusive powers under a new name.

The draft, formally named the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, was gazetted on September 22 and sent to lawmakers today. It keeps an overbroad definition of terrorism, weak judicial oversight, sweeping search and arrest powers for the armed forces, and executive authority to curtail freedom of speech, assembly, association and movement. Those provisions neither meet the benchmarks set by United Nations human rights experts nor comply with commitments Sri Lanka made to the European Union under a trade deal that links tariff benefits to human rights conditions. The full analysis of the bill, published on October 5, lays out the gap between what the government promised and what the text delivers.

What the bill would let authorities do

The definition of terrorism remains dangerously vague. It includes "unduly compelling a government or an international organization, to do or to abstain from doing any act," as quoted by the rights group. A separate clause targets anyone who, with intent or knowledge, induces another person to commit a terrorist offense by distributing or circulating a "terrorist publication" — language the group says could be used to curtail free speech, given how often the old law was used to interrogate, arrest and detain journalists and social media users.

Detention powers are the deepest worry. Under the new terrorism bill, the defense secretary could order a suspect detained for two months on a police application, with extensions running up to a year, and a magistrate cannot overturn the order. Using different provisions together, a person could be held without charge for as long as two years. There are safeguards: magistrates may visit approved detention sites without notice and order medical examinations if torture is suspected. But a proposed Independent Review Committee can only recommend changes to a detention order — the final decision stays with the minister who appointed the committee, so the watchdog says genuine independence is in doubt.

A near half-century of a "temporary" law

The law this terrorism bill would replace was first enacted in 1979 as a temporary measure. Nearly five decades later, it has been used to target Tamil and Muslim communities, the media, human rights defenders and government critics. In 2017, Sri Lanka pledged to repeal it as a condition for the EU reinstating preferential trade access, and several replacement attempts have failed since 2018. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake campaigned in 2024 on abolishing what his manifesto called oppressive acts including the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Yet his government has continued to use the law — in June 2026 it was used to arrest and detain a 24-year-old Tamil hip-hop artist, Sangeethan Ganeshkumar, in connection with a music video. According to information Sri Lanka's own Human Rights Commission provided to the UN, there were 46 detention cases under the law in 2025 and another 12 in the first three months of 2026.

That record is why the stakes around the new terrorism bill are so high. Rights groups say Sri Lanka committed to replace the law with rights-respecting legislation, and UN human rights experts set out five prerequisites in 2021 — including a precise definition of terrorism, robust protections against arbitrary detention and torture, and real judicial oversight. The group concludes that the draft fails those standards.

The counterpoint: real reforms, same architecture

Not every analyst sees the terrorism bill as a simple rebrand. As reported by the Sri Lanka Brief, an independent policy analysis, the September draft includes safeguards absent from the old law: protest, advocacy, dissent and industrial action are excluded from the definition of terrorist intent, and journalism, academic research, artistic expression and human rights documentation receive explicit protection. Extending detention beyond two months now requires High Court approval, and statements to magistrates must meet voluntariness requirements with audio-visual recording. The analysis calls these substantive improvements rather than cosmetic changes.

But the same analysis flags a deeper problem: the terrorism bill still builds a parallel criminal-justice system outside ordinary criminal procedure, with its own detention orders, proscription regime and military arrest powers. During the first two months, the magistrate "shall make an order giving effect" to the detention order rather than deciding whether the detention itself is lawful — meaning effective judicial control arrives late. Military personnel also keep a formal role in civilian law enforcement, and broad "confidential information" provisions could affect journalists documenting police and military conduct.

Why young Sri Lankans should care

The digital-rights implications reach straight into everyday life. The new terrorism bill's publication provisions cover distributing, transmitting or possessing terrorist publications where intent or knowledge exists — and the real question, analysts say, is how courts will interpret "indirect inducement" when a social media share or a forwarded message is involved. For a generation that organizes, jokes and dissents online, vague wording plus a history of arbitrary enforcement is the core risk. The rights group's Asia director put the warning bluntly: "The proposed law will allow similar abuses, breaching Sri Lanka's obligations under international law and jeopardizing its EU trade benefits," said Elaine Pearson. Trade preferences matter because they give international partners leverage — the EU has tied market access to human rights conditions before, and its verdict on this law could shape the bill's future in Parliament.

Parliament now faces a choice: amend the draft to meet international standards, or pass a terrorism bill that rights groups say repackages the same abusive powers. The group has called for an immediate moratorium on the old law while a genuinely rights-respecting replacement is prepared. It is a case study unfolding in real time for anyone tracking how security laws are used to limit dissent — and a reminder of why independent watchdogs matter, as explored in our report on Amnesty's call to abolish ICE. For more stories on rights and accountability around the world, see Human Rights.