  
The Joint Opposition has raised serious concerns regarding the Government’s drive to enact the Protection of State from Terrorism Bill, warning that the proposed legislation threatens to dismantle media freedom and imperil journalists across Sri Lanka. Speaking at a media briefing in Colombo, Joint Opposition Convener Prof. G.L. Peiris cautioned that the swift enactment of the bill would affect the lives of the entire population and mark the end of independent media institutions, editors, and reporters.
Highlighting the core function of journalism, Prof. Peiris argued that standard reporting cannot legitimately be viewed as an attempt to improperly influence action under the law. However, he warned that provisions within the draft legislation could allow media reports to be categorized as acts of terrorism. Emphasizing the vital role investigative reporters played in uncovering major national scandals—such as the disappearance of 323 containers and the procurement of inferior coal—he noted that the bill could compel reporters to disclose confidential sources, effectively bringing investigative journalism to a halt.
The Joint Opposition also criticized the legislation’s overly broad definition of terrorism, asserting that no comparable legal framework globally adopts such an expansive scope. The draft legislation designates public health, the power grid, and archaeological sites as areas vulnerable to terrorism, yet fails to establish specific thresholds of harm required to trigger these provisions. Furthermore, acts aimed at influencing the Government to adopt or abandon a course of action could be classified as terrorism, carrying penalties of up to 15 years in prison or fines of not less than Rs. 15 million.
Key Developments
- Source Confidentiality Under Threat: Provisions in the bill could force journalists to reveal confidential sources, crippling their ability to investigate corruption and report public-interest matters.
- Broad Definition of Terrorism: The bill includes archaeological sites, public health, and the national power grid without defining the specific thresholds of harm required to constitute an offense.
- Severe Criminal Penalties: Attempting to influence the Government could be treated as an act of terrorism, penalized by a 15-year prison sentence or a minimum fine of Rs. 15 million.
- Restrictions on Public Gatherings: The law provides the executive with authority to ban media briefings, rallies, seminars, and protests, while potentially penalizing individuals who distribute leaflets for gatherings where contentious speeches are made.
- Sweeping Executive Detention Powers: The Defence Secretary would be granted discretionary powers to prohibit individuals from entering any location, while the Inspector General of Police (IGP) or a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) could seek the Defence Secretary’s authorization to detain terror suspects for two months without trial.
Prof. Peiris concluded that empowering the Defence Secretary to restrict individuals from accessing locations based on personal discretion, coupled with the ability to ban gatherings and detain citizens without judicial oversight for up to two months, represents an alarming consolidation of executive power that endangers democratic discourse.