8th October 2026
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is alarmed by the contents of the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill (the Bill), gazetted on 6 October 2026. The Bill is framed in broad, vague and sweeping language and contains few, if any, meaningful safeguards. It rolls back hard-won protections in the ordinary criminal law. It creates a parallel regime of arrest and detention that has the potential to entrench torture and severely curtail fundamental rights. The Bill was gazetted on the same day the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTA) was tabled in Parliament, which raises serious questions about the Government’s timing and motive. This is an initial statement. It addresses some of the most egregious provisions of the Bill and is not an exhaustive analysis. CPA may issue a more detailed commentary in due course.
CPA recognises that organised crime causes serious harm to individuals, communities, the economy and the rule of law, and that it calls for an effective, multi-pronged response. However, any lawmaking in this area requires careful consideration, transparency and genuine consultation. None of this has taken place. The Bill was drafted without any public consultation, despite its far-reaching consequences for fundamental rights and the criminal justice system.
The Bill presents itself as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which entered into force in 2003 and which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. In the twenty years since ratification, there has been no known public discussion of law reform to give effect to the Convention. This raises serious questions as to why the Bill is now being rushed through. CPA considers the Bill’s framing disingenuous. Compliance with the Convention does not require most of what the Bill contains. Under the guise of fulfilling an international obligation, the Bill seeks to roll back hard-won safeguards in other and similar legislation. It comes at a time when the Government has committed to repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). In effect, it would reintroduce many of the PTA’s most criticised features under a different name. This Bill would in effect completely negate even the most basic procedural improvements sought to be made by the PSTA.
The scope of the Bill is extremely broad. Clause 3 defines a “serious crime” as any offence punishable with four years’ imprisonment or more, together with a lengthy schedule of further offences. This captures a wide variety of offences under the Penal Code and other laws, ranging from bigamy, forgery and theft to copyright infringement, unlicensed gambling, forest offences and obstructing a public servant. Under clause 66, an “organised criminal group” need only consist of three persons and need not have any formal structure. These provisions are broad and vague, this is especially problematic as a person arrested in terms of this law will be entitled to much less legal safeguards than those arrested under the normal law. and will allow the executive to wide discretion in deciding.
Furthermore, under clause 4(2), in determining membership, a court may consider a person’s dress, hand signs, tattoos, associations and the places they visit. These provisions risk criminalising association rather than conduct. They may be used against young people, marginalised communities, protesters and dissenting voices.
The Bill establishes a parallel detention regime. Under clause 20(1), a suspect need not be produced before a Magistrate for up to 72 hours. The Secretary to the Ministry in charge of the Police, an executive official, may then issue Detention Orders under clause 21 authorising detention in police custody for up to one year. Under clause 20(3)(a), the Magistrate has no discretion and must give effect to such an order. Under clause 25, persons already in remand may be transferred back to police custody and held in isolation. Under clause 23, bail may be granted only by the High Court, in some cases only in exceptional circumstances, and a suspect may be held in remand for up to a year before indictment. Prolonged police custody under executive orders, with limited judicial oversight, creates precisely the conditions in which torture and ill-treatment occur.
These risks are compounded by the Bill’s evidentiary provisions. Clause 46 removes the protections in sections 25, 26 and 30 of the Evidence Ordinance. Clause 47 makes confessions to police officers of the rank of Assistant Superintendent and above admissible. Those protections exist precisely because of the long and documented history of coerced confessions in Sri Lanka. Under clause 48, statements by persons who cannot be cross-examined would also be admissible. Under clause 50, evidence of past conduct and association would be admissible to establish membership of a group.
The absence of consultation is also evident in the drafting. Because the threshold in clause 3 refers only to imprisonment “of either description”, offences such as murder, rape and robbery, which carry death or rigorous imprisonment only, may arguably fall outside the Bill’s scope. A law of this significance should not be enacted with such basic uncertainties as to its applicability.
The Bill also lacks meaningful safeguards on investigative powers. Clause 17 permits searches without warrant, and clauses 28 and 45 provide for digital surveillance, including interception of communications. Under clause 44(4), senior police officers may obtain subscriber, call and location data without any court order. Under clause 45, they may compel the unlocking of encrypted devices. Clause 65 creates broad duties to provide information to the police, and clause 14 restricts media reporting of court proceedings. Together, these provisions pose a serious threat to the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and a fair trial. Clause 59, a sweeping immunity clause, further shields officials from accountability.
Sri Lanka’s experience shows that broad and vaguely defined powers, once granted, are routinely misused. Organised crime is a serious problem that requires an effective response. That response must be grounded in the rule of law and constitutional guarantees, not in emergency-style powers made permanent.
In light of these grave concerns, CPA calls on the Government to immediately withdraw the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill in its present form. Legislation that risks undermining fundamental rights should not be rushed through without genuine scrutiny, transparency and public participation. Any new framework must be developed through an open and meaningful consultative process, with clear and enforceable safeguards against arbitrary or executive abuse. The Government must ensure that the fight against organised crime does not become a pretext for expanding unchecked state power, restricting civic space or eroding the rights and freedoms that the law is meant to protect.