Parliament struggles to define ‘terrorist’

By Ashwin Hemmathagama – Our Lobby Correspondent

Failing to interpret the definition of ‘terrorist’, Parliament prematurely adjourned the debate on the Suppression of Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Bill tabled yesterday. Party leaders will arrive at a suitable definition today and will resume the debate tomorrow, amending the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Financing Act No. 25 of 2005.

Raising objection on the definition, Opposition lawmaker Ravi Karunanayake stated that in the absence of an interpretation, the continuation of a debate is useless and that “the Government deliberately avoided finding a suitable meaning for the word ‘terrorist’ also highlighted at a recent consultative committee.”

According to independent Member of Parliament Ajith Kumara: “The consultative committee failed to do so and the respective term ‘terrorist’ can be used to identify anybody at the discretion of the Government in relation to the recent impeachment of the Chief Justice Dr. Mrs. Shirani Bandaranayake, who was also labelled with such terms.”

According to Deputy Minister of External Affairs Neomal Perera who moved the bill, Clause 2 of the Bill will amend Section 3 of the respective Act and the legal effect will remove the exemption given on humanitarian grounds, and introduce a punishment in respect of the offence of providing material support or resources to terrorists or terrorists organisations.

Clause 2 of the Bill will amend the section 4F of the principal enactment for the purpose of clarity and Clause 4 will amend Section 5 of the enactment, and the legal effect of the section as amended is consequential to the amendment made by Clause 2.