Sri Lanka Unions Rally Against Security Bills That Could Criminalize Dissent

ARCHIVE — Colombo protest, 13 April 2022. Photograph: AntanO / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0.

Trade unions and political activists rallied in Colombo on November 6 against two security bills that critics say would revive arbitrary detention, unchecked surveillance and weak judicial oversight under new names. The protesters demanded that Parliament withdraw both measures and open any replacement legislation to genuine public scrutiny.

The dispute centers on the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill and the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill. Parliament introduced the first on October 6 and the second on October 20. Debate and voting are expected in the coming weeks.

The government says the bills are meant to replace Sri Lanka’s notorious 1979 Prevention of Terrorism Act and strengthen the fight against organized crime. Government spokesman Nalinda Jayatissa rejected claims that the proposals threaten trade unions or media freedom. But unions, local civil-society groups and international rights organizations argue that the drafts preserve much of the coercive architecture the government promised to abolish.

“These are clearly draconian laws,” union activist Saman Rathnapriya told the Associated Press, warning that the broad provisions could allow authorities to brand ordinary people as terrorists. The People’s Struggle Alliance separately called for prompt access to lawyers, immediate judicial review after arrest and independent investigations into torture, enforced disappearance and unlawful detention.

A reform that keeps the old machinery

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s National People’s Power alliance won power in 2024 after pledging to abolish oppressive laws. That promise mattered because Sri Lanka’s existing counterterrorism regime has long been associated with arbitrary detention, torture allegations and repression directed disproportionately at Tamil and Muslim communities, journalists and dissidents.

The Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte, 4 March 2024. Photograph: Dennis Sylvester Hurd / Wikimedia Commons / CC0.

The new counterterrorism bill includes some improvements. It removes police confessions as admissible evidence, requires audio-visual recording of interrogations and adds safeguards for journalism, research and civil-society work. Those changes are real, but they do not resolve the central objections.

Human Rights Watch says the definition of terrorism remains overly broad, judicial oversight remains inadequate and security forces would retain sweeping search-and-arrest powers. The United Nations human-rights office has warned that the draft could restrict speech, peaceful assembly, association and movement, while leaving the president broad authority to proscribe organizations.

The organized-crime proposal creates another route around ordinary criminal procedure. Human Rights Watch says it would permit prolonged detention, sharply restrict bail and admit confessions made to senior police officers. It also authorizes broad interception and extraction of digital communications, including some subscriber and location information without a court order.

Those powers matter far beyond conventional organized crime. When governments define criminal association broadly and weaken judicial checks, labor organization, protest networks and political opposition can become targets. Sri Lanka’s recent history gives workers little reason to accept assurances without enforceable safeguards.

Economic crisis and the fear of protest

The argument is unfolding four years after mass protests toppled President Gotabaya Rajapaksa during an economic collapse. Debt, austerity and the rising cost of living remain part of the political landscape. Pamphlets has reported on the record debt burden now carried by developing countries; Sri Lanka shows how financial crisis can be followed by a struggle over who may organize against its consequences.

Rathnapriya accused the government of failing to revive the economy and preparing legal tools to suppress future unrest. That is an allegation, not an established motive. Yet it captures why unions distrust legislation that expands police power while households still bear the costs of crisis and adjustment.

The resistance also fits a wider regional pattern. Bangladesh garment workers have continued shutting factories and marching over wages even after official promises of a revised pay structure. Across South Asia, governments praise workers as engines of recovery while treating independent organization as a security problem.

Parliament faces a democratic test

The bills have not become law. Petitions are before Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court, Parliament has yet to complete debate, and the government can still amend or withdraw the drafts. That distinction matters: opponents are fighting proposed powers, not describing a completed legal crackdown.

But the burden now rests with a governing alliance that once opposed the same repressive tradition. Repealing the old Prevention of Terrorism Act only to distribute its powers across new statutes would not fulfill the democratic mandate of 2024.

The unions’ demand is straightforward: national security and organized crime should be addressed through precise law, independent courts, due process and public consultation—not vague definitions, executive detention and surveillance without effective oversight. If the government believes the bills protect labor and media freedom, it should write those protections directly into law rather than asking workers to trust promises that future police and presidents will not abuse.