The Government’s proposed legislation to replace the 1979 Prevention of Terrorism Act is moving towards a full vote in Parliament as hearings in the Parliamentary Sectoral Oversight Committee on International Relations draw to a close.
Committee Chairman, Kandy District MP Mayantha Dissanayake presided over a number of hearings earlier this month where observations on the Counter Terrorism Bill were heard from a variety of stakeholders including MPs, the Foreign Ministry, Attorney-General’s Department and civil rights groups. “I am writing to the Ministry of Defence to seek the observations of the IGP and the tri-forces chiefs,” Dissanayake told the Sunday Observer. “They were instrumental in drafting the policy framework that led to the Bill, and I think it is essential that they have a voice in the final product.” Dissanayake’s Oversight Committee on International Relations took over the Bill from the Oversight Committee on National Security.
The Counter Terrorism Bill has been in the works for three years, evolving from a national security heavy draft, with an over broad section on offences covered under the proposed legislation, to the more human rights compliant version currently under discussion.
The International Relations Committee has adopted further amendments to the original Bill that remedy Constitutional concerns raised in the determination of the Supreme Court presented to Parliament last November, as well as other amendments to strengthen transparency, oversight and protection of constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties.
“Repealing the PTA is a must,” TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran told the Committee. “We need to do it soon and we need counter-terrorism legislation to replace the PTA.” The new law “should be such that it can’t be abused and would not result in human rights violations,” he said.
“We can’t forget the atrocities that happened as a result of the PTA,” MEP Leader and committee member Dinesh Gunawardena said. “We need to be very careful. We can’t allow the new law to be used by the Government to oppress the people and trade union activism.”
Foreign Ministry Legal Advisor Suren Fernando told the Committee that the Counter Terrorism Bill “may not be an ideal law, but there has been compromise by all sides and we have developed a Bill that can be enacted with suitable minor amendments.”
Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda cautioned the Committee against making light of the prospect of terrorism. “Please don’t think that
our country will not have to face terrorism again. The threat looms large,” he said. “We need a strong counter-terrorism law that can be ready when the need arises.” Kodagoda conceded that the PTA had resulted in human rights violations while vouching for its value as a critical criminal justice response to LTTE terrorism. “I can prove that every time a political activist not associated with terrorism and terrorist organisations has been arrested and detained under the PTA, a politician in authority has been behind it and got it done,” he revealed.
UPFA MP Vasudeva Nannayakkara said his party “was against the overall structure and the core nature” of the proposed Bill. “Whatever we do to amend the Bill, we will oppose its enactment,” he warned. The JVP too has voiced opposition to the Bill. Committee Member Bimal Ratnayake in particular echoed the concern about the bill’s definition of terrorism voiced by Dinesh Gunawardena. Constitutional Lawyer and UNP MP Dr. Jayampathy Wickamaratne told the Committee that according to the Bill’s current definition of terrorism “even everything that was done in the 1953 Harthaal would be considered terrorism.”
Mayantha Dissanayake told Sunday Observer that the Bill’s current definition of terrorism encompasses fewer acts than equivalent statutes in the United States, United Kingdom and elsewhere. “Everyone has invested a lot of thought into this definition,” Dissanayake said. “In the end, the law needs to make clear to all Sri Lankans that violence and the threat of violence can play no role in achieving political goals. Too many times, Sri Lankans of all ethnicities have thought differently. Such ideas have no place in a liberal democracy.”
Foreign Secretary Ravinatha Ariyasinghe addressed the Committee and dispelled suspicion that the Government was trying to force the Bill through Parliament prior to the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) meeting in Geneva next month. “We don’t have to enact the Bill before the next session,” he said.
Dissanayake agreed that there is no undue haste to enact the Bill but stressed that the remaining deliberations should be expedient. “The budget debate will take up the next six weeks. That is plenty of time to get observations from the Police and tri-forces and move the Bill out of Committee. Their input will be valuable, but what they need us to do most of all is to put the law in place to allow them to get to work,” Dissanayake said.
“Once we have considered the observations I sought from the Defence Ministry, it is past time to get this Bill over the finishing line.”