Cosmetic PTA amendments will not do

The draconian Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, No. 48 of 1979 (PTA) was amended in Parliament with 86 votes in favour and 35 votes against. The bill to amend the much-criticised law was tabled in Parliament by Foreign Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris.  The PTA has been used for over 40 years to enable prolonged arbitrary detention, extract false confessions through torture, and target minority communities and political dissidents in Sri Lanka. Its application also enabled the commission of enforced disappearances. Suspects detained pursuant to the PTA have been held for decades without charge. 

The changes enacted through the new amendments Act leave intact some of the most egregious provisions of the PTA, which have led to alleged human rights violations, including arbitrary detention, torture and enforced disappearances. For example, the period of detention allowed through executive order without a suspect being produced before a court of law has been reduced from 18 months to 12 months. This does not make a material difference in reality and would still allow for abuse, including torture, which happens often while individuals are held for prolong periods. 

Recently, Ahnaf Jazeem, a young poet and teacher, was detained for over 18 months under the PTA. After obtaining bail, Ahnaf told reporters how attempts were made to coerce him into making a statement against Hejaaz Hizbullah, another PTA victim. Hizbullah, a prominent lawyer who courageously fought against the illegal power grab through the constitutional coup in 2018 was detained for nearly two years until his recent release on bail. Having been initially accused of crimes related to terrorism under the PTA, the Government’s case has evolved in to a near farce with Hizbullah now been indicted over allegations of hate speech. 

These two recent examples grabbed the attention of the world for the indiscriminate, arbitrary and callous manner in which the PTA is abused and weaponised by the State, especially against minority communities. Less known are the scores of Tamil detainees held for years under suspicion of terrorism. Often, they have been denied access to lawyers, tortured and forced to give confessions in Sinhalese, a language they do not comprehend. Such travesties of justice deserve serious attention and genuine commitment from the Government for reform. Clearly this is missing and the fact that the foreign minister rather than the minister of justice or the minister in charge of public security had to present this bill gives away the true motives of the ruling regime. There is no secret that the European Union has demanded reforms to the PTA as part of its evaluation for the continuation of the GSP Plus trade concessions. These concessions that are linked to the human rights record of a country are now vital for the economic survival of the country. Sri Lanka’s appalling human rights record and the lack of corrective measures have also been severely criticised at the UN Human Rights Council. Cosmetic, minimalistic and disingenuous changes to the draconian PTA are not going to change the realities in the ground. There is a growing demand for the repeal of the PTA outright. If necessary, it can be replaced by legislation dealing with public security that would conform with the Government’s human rights commitments. 

Any genuine reform should be compliant with international law obligations, that would employ definitions of terrorism that comply with international norms; ensure precision and legal certainty, especially when this legislation may impact the rights of freedom of expression, opinion, association and religion or belief; institute provisions and measures to prevent and prohibit arbitrary deprivation of liberty; ensure the enforcement of measures to prevent torture and enforced disappearance and adhere to their absolute prohibition and non-derogable prohibition; and enable overarching due process and fair trial guarantees, including judicial oversight and access to legal counsel.Until such a genuine commitment towards reform is made, the recent amendments should be seen as a desperate attempt by the Government to hoodwink its international partners rather than an attempt to protect the rights of its citizens.