Centre for Policy Alternatives on 18 September, 2018

Initial Comment on the Proposed Counter Terrorism Bill

September 18th, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) notes the improved version of the Counter Terrorism Bill to repeal and replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) which has reportedly obtained Cabinet approval last week. While the process of preparing the Bill could have been much more transparent and inclusive, the final outcome, if enacted in the present form, would be a significant and welcome improvement on the current framework of antiterrorism powers as established by the PTA and a previous leaked draft of the Counter Terrorism Framework.

The new framework proposed by the Bill would represent a much better balance between the liberty of the individual and the powers of the state by establishing several meaningful checks and balances for the exceptional powers given to the state to combat terrorism. While CPA notes improvements can be made to the Bill to make it more consistent with national and international human rights standards, we note in particular that many of the more egregious aspects of the PTA have been removed, or at least ameliorated. These include the removal of the admissibility of confessions (which has served as an invitation to endemic torture and arbitrary convictions under the PTA) and the overbroad provisions having a chilling effect on the freedom of expression. Improvements include the access by suspects to legal counsel, magistrates, and the wider role for the Human Rights Commission, and that powers of arrest and detention are checked by stronger judicial safeguards and lesser periods of permissible detention without charge.

Despite this, CPA is concerned with media reports indicating that some members of the government have expressed reservations about the more liberal provisions of the Bill, and there is a threat that retrograde features might be reintroduced into the Bill by way of committee-stage amendments. CPA has consistently raised concerns with such practices of committee-stage amendments which are beyond the scrutiny of the judiciary and citizens of Sri Lanka. We urge the government to reject these calls, and to ensure that the integrity of the Bill is not distorted or destroyed through unprincipled amendments serving the ends of authoritarianism and future human rights violations.

CPA also urges the government to publish the Bill at the earliest opportunity to enable fuller public scrutiny and debate of its contents prior to the parliamentary stage.

Download this statement in English, Sinhala and Tamil.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 18 September, 2018

Udaya Prabath Gammanpila V Attorney General (Centre for Policy Alternatives intervenient- petitioner)

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, filed papers on September 12th 2018 intervening in the petition filed by Udaya Gammanpila, MP challenging ‘The Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution’ (The Bill), a Private Member’s Bill tabled in Parliament on 5th of September 2018 by Vijitha Herath, MP. The proposed Bill seeks to make significant changes to the office of the Executive President. In terms of the Bill the President would no longer be the Head of Government and would be elected for a five-year term by a simple majority in Parliament.

Read the full written submission made by CPA here.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 12 September, 2018

CPA Intervenes on the Challenge to the Proposed Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution

12th September 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, filed papers today intervening in the petition filed by Udaya Gammanpila, MP challenging ‘The Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution’ (The Bill), a Private Member’s Bill tabled in Parliament on 5th of September 2018 by Vijitha Herath, MP. The proposed Bill seeks to make significant changes to the office of the Executive President. In terms of the Bill the President would no longer be the Head of Government and would be elected for a five-year term by a simple majority in Parliament.

CPA’s intervention in this case is a reiteration of its longstanding position on the need to abolish the Executive Presidency. The promise to abolish the executive presidency has received the continuous support of the citizens of Sri Lanka including affirmation at every Presidential election since 1994. CPA has consistently advocated this position and was the only civil society organization that challenged the 18th Amendment to the Constitution which expanded the powers of the Executive Presidency in an arbitrary and anti-democratic manner. CPA also supported the 19th Amendment to the Constitution which sought to curtail some of the powers provided by the 18th Amendment and ushered in key reforms. At this time, CPA thus sees the proposed Bill as the most viable avenue of reform in order to achieve the single most important pledge on which the current President and Government were elected to office in 2015.

Download this statement in English, Tamil & Sinhala

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 3 September, 2018

Confronting Accountability for Hate Speech in Sri Lanka: A critique of the legal framework

Post-war Sri Lanka has witnessed numerous incidents of ethno-religious violence. From Aluthgama in 2014 to Gintota in 2017 to Ampara and Digana in 2018, instances of ethno-religious violence have escalated to the point of property damage, grievous injury, and—in the cases of Aluthgama and Digana—death. Violence of this nature is not restricted to the Buddhist and Muslim communities, as seen in these examples, nor is it a novel phenomenon. Anti-Tamil riots in 1958 and 1977, the events of Black July in 1983, the 1915 Sinhalese-Muslim riots, the 2001 Mawanella riots, and numerous other instances, stemmed from festering tensions between ethnic or religious communities. In fact, the incidence of ethno-religious violence in modern Sri Lanka can be traced as far back as the Kotahena riots of 1883, which involved clashes between Buddhist and Christian communities.

This latest bout of ethno-religious violence has prompted demands for the prosecution of both hate crimes as well as the hate speech that is believed to have led to such violence. As pointed out by numerous parties in response to the government’s attempts to introduce new hate speech legislation in 2015, Sri Lanka’s legal framework already contains a number of provisions addressing hate speech. However, the dearth of prosecutions or convictions under this framework despite the recurrence of these incidences is cause for concern. Inaction by successive governments has also contributed to increasing fears among minorities and strengthened a sense of impunity among perpetrators. The events of the past few years have made it apparent that neither the incidence of hate speech nor the severity of its consequences are likely to diminish without serious and tangible action being taken.

In light of this, there is a need to evaluate the existing Sri Lankan legal framework which provides for the prosecution of hate speech to determine whether the lack of action on the issue is a product of legal gaps; practical issues of a lack of capacity or resources; or other, more complex reasons stemming from the current political context and dynamics.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives has prepared this report to assess the legal framework on hate speech in Sri Lanka. The report identifies gaps in the framework and overbroad provisions that may not curb hate speech, lead to violations of fundamental rights and freedoms and facilitate excessive censorship. The report also fills a gap in the literature by shedding light on the limited number of steps taken to address accountability in this regard despite a broad legal framework addressing the issue. The report accordingly provides a range of recommendations for potential legal, policy and structural reforms. The report reiterates that swift and decisive action is needed by the Government and other stakeholders to prevent future incidents and strengthen the rule of law. The report is, however, not an attempt to document incidents of hate speech, as this task has been initiated by others.

The report begins with a brief theoretical discussion on freedom of expression and hate speech in the remainder of this introductory chapter. The following chapters examine the legal framework pertaining to hate speech in Sri Lanka by laying out the key legislation—the ICCPR Act, the Penal Code, the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Police Ordinance—and examining judicial decisions arising from these provisions. This analysis reveals a number of practical challenges which confront the application of these laws to hold perpetrators to account and thus result in limited prosecutions and convictions. The chapters accordingly provide a number of ideas for action and reform. The concluding chapter collates and summarises these reform proposals to address lacunae in the existing legal framework.

Download the report here.

Read ‘Liking Violence’, CPA’s 2014 report on online hate speech in Sri Lanka, here.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 10 August, 2018

CPA Asks the Steering Committee to Publish ‘Draft Zero’

August 10th 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) notes the media coverage surrounding a document described as ‘Draft Zero’ – evidently produced by some legal experts resourcing the Constitutional Assembly process – which is reported to have been submitted to the Steering Committee. According to reports, this document sets out a scheme for a new constitution based on the recommendations of the Sub-Committees of the Constitutional Assembly which reported in 2016, and the Steering Committee’s Interim Report of 2017.

While this document has not been made public by the Steering Committee, it is clear from the detailed critical commentaries on its contents that are appearing in the national media that the document has been leaked. We are thus in an extraordinary situation in which critics of constitutional reform are shaping the public debate on a future constitution, while proponents of reform as well as the general public remain in the dark about the proposals before the Steering Committee. This has removed any reasonable justification based on confidentiality which has so far prevented the publication of this document.

It may be the case that the government’s conduct of the reforms process, or lack thereof, has by now almost entirely squandered the political opportunity for a new constitution created by the landmark elections of 2015. But the government continues to owe a duty of basic candour to the public that twice mandated and entrusted it with the responsibility for constitutional reform in 2015. CPA accordingly demands that the document known as ‘Draft Zero’ be published forthwith. It is the least the government can do to demonstrate some respect for the goodwill and credulity of its citizens.

Download the statement here.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 1 August, 2018

Digital Dangers: CPA Flags Continued Use of Disinformation, Propaganda and Hate Speech in Sri Lanka

Disinformation, propaganda and hate speech continues to distort the digital space in Sri Lanka, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) noted during a panel discussion organised by the Information Safety and Capacity (ISC) Project, which provides information security and capacity building assistance to civil society organisations, rights activists and independent media. The discussion was held in Washington DC on June 4, and CPA were the only participants representing South Asia.

These distortions in the digital space deepen divisions along lines of race and religion that persist post-war, CPA noted, alongside panelists from Venezuela, Macedonia, Ecuador, South Africa and Ukraine.

CPA flagged the spread of hate speech on social media during riots targeting the Muslim community in the Central and Eastern Province of Sri Lanka, resulting in the government blocking social media platforms Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, while delaying the immediate detention of the perpetrators responsible for the violence.

Other topics raised included a recent spike of bot accounts following key accounts on Twitter, targeting journalists, activists, lawyers and diplomats in April, which affected countries across South Asia, including Hong Kong, Myanmar, Cambodia and other countries. The weaponisation of social media using bots and troll accounts by political figures on Twitter, including by Joint Opposition MP Namal Rajapaksa was flagged as a point of concern. Parallels were drawn with the situation in Macedonia, where the State actively uses ‘troll farms’ to spread State-sponsored propaganda and disinformation, while the Ukranian panelist spoke about the Russian influence on disinformation within the country.

In Venezuela, the integration of citizen’s biometric data with social welfare programmes raises privacy concerns similar to those raised by Sri Lankan civil society after the introduction of a digital Identity Card in Sri Lanka, late last year.

CPA also noted impingements of freedom of expression online, with 13 websites blocked by the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission since 2015.

In the lead up to the panel discussion, CPA participated in the ISC Project’s annual workshop, bringing together tech-developers and activists. CPA led sessions highlighting the situation in Sri Lanka pertaining to freedom of expression online, to an audience of tech-developers, representatives of established social media platforms and activists from across the world.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 19 July, 2018

Civil Society Concerned with Implementing the Death Penalty & Providing Police Powers to the Military

19th July 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The undersigned civil society activists and groups in Sri Lanka express our deep concern about the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers to take steps towards implementing the death penalty. The death penalty has not been implemented in Sri Lanka since 1976, though it continues to remain as a punishment for certain categories of offences. According to media reports, the Cabinet of Ministers approved a proposal by President Maithripala Sirisena to take steps towards implementing the death penalty regarding persons who have been sentenced to death for drug offences and “who continue to operate the drug racket from their prison cells”.

We reiterate the objections made by several stakeholders in stating that;

  • There is no empirical evidence to support the assertion that the death penalty has a deterrent value and that it reduces crime;
  • Once imposed the death penalty cannot be reversed as such individuals could to be punished with death for crimes they did not commit;
  • Enforcing the death penalty is contrary to Sri Lanka’s international obligations; and
  • It is not the way a civilised society deals with crime, especially complicated crime in the nature of trafficking narcotics.

In this regard we welcome the observations of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) contained in letter dated 13th July 2018 addressed to President Sirisena which echoes the its previous letter to President Sirisena in January 2016 requesting him to take steps to abolish the death penalty. We urge the President, Prime Minister and the other members of the Cabinet of Ministers to seriously consider these recommendations by the HRCSL, which is statutorily mandated to advise the government in matters relating to the promotion and protection of human rights.

We are also concerned by a proposal reportedly approved by the Cabinet of Ministers at its meeting on 10th July 2018 to draft legislation that would allow the security forces to exercise some police powers for a period of two years to purportedly help the Police in “eradicating the drug menace in the country”. The military exercising police powers is unacceptable in a context where there is no on-going armed conflict. Military involvement in civilian activities has been a problem in post war Sri Lanka and the Government of Sri Lanka since 2010 has continuously promised to reduce the role of the military in civilian life. Whilst progress in this regard has been slow, this proposal if passed into law would be a mistake and a step in the wrong direction. The military’s training does not equip it to carry out policing functions effectively, as was seen when the military was summoned to deal with a protest in Rathupaswala in 2013, forcing the military to engage in policing functions can have disastrous consequences. Whilst the proposed bill is for a specific period of time, Sri Lanka’s experience with other similar legislation has shown that these types of laws eventually become a permanent fixture in the legal system.

There is no doubt about the need to curb narcotics in Sri Lanka, however the response of the Government of Sri Lanka needs to be carefully considered so as not to exacerbate existing problems. If the Government of Sri Lanka is serious about dealing with narcotics and drug trafficking it needs to among other things, focus on training the Police to deal with narcotics related crime and invest in modern equipment and technology to help investigations. The Government of Sri Lanka also needs to address the strong perception in society that politicians are involved in trafficking narcotics and/or are direct beneficiaries of money derived from such activities. Implementing the death penalty and using the security forces would do little to solve the problem and in the long run would only compound the rule of law problems in Sri Lanka.

Signatories

Individuals

  1. D. Rajani
  2. R.A Ramees
  3. Aaranya Rajasingam
  4. Ainslie Joseph
  5. Anithra Varia
  6. Annouchka Wijesinghe
  7. Anoma Wijewardene
  8. Anushaya Collure
  9. Aritha Wickramasinghe
  10. Asma Rahman
  11. Gowthaman
  12. Bishop Kumara Illangasinghe
  13. Bhavani Fonseka
  14. Brito Fernando
  15. Chandra Jayaratne
  16. Chandraguptha Thenuwara
  17. Chulani Kodikara
  18. Cyril Pathiranage
  19. Danesh Casie Chetty
  20. Deanne Uyangoda
  21. Deekshya Illangasinghe
  22. Daya Somasundaram
  23. P. Saravanamuttu
  24. Selvy Thiruchandran
  25. Faaiz Ameer
  26. J. M. Joseph Jeyaseelan
  27. Sarath Iddamalgoda
  28. Gamini Viyangoda
  29. Godfrey Yogarajah
  30. Iromi Perera
  31. Ishara Danasekara
  32. Jayanta de S Wijeratne
  33. Jayanthi Samaraweera Gunewardena
  34. Jeanne Samuel
  35. Juwairiya Mohideen
  36. Aingkaran
  37. S. Ratnavale
  38. Lahiru Kithalagama
  39. Lionel Guruge
  40. Luwie Ganeshathasan
  41. Mahaluxmy Kurushanthan
  42. Mario Gomez
  43. Mujeebur Rahman
  44. Nagulan Nesiah
  45. Nigel Nugawela
  46. Muthulingam
  47. Prabodha Rathnayaka
  48. Jayadeva Uyangoda
  49. Raisa Wickrematunge
  50. Ramya Chamalie Jirasinghe
  51. Rohana Jayaratne
  52. Rohini Weerasinghe Weerasinghe
  53. Ruki Fernando
  54. P Pushpakanthan
  55. Sakina Moinudeen
  56. Sampath Samarakoon
  57. Sandun Thudugala
  58. Sanjana Hattotuwa
  59. Sarah Arumugam
  60. Selvaraj Rajasegar
  61. Senel Wanniarachchi
  62. Shalini Wickramasuriya
  63. Shalomi Daniel
  64. Sharanya Sekaram
  65. Shreen Saroor
  66. Noeline Christine Fernando
  67. Subha Wijesiriwardena
  68. Sumika Perera
  69. Sunela Jayewardene
  70. Sunethra Bandaranaike
  71. Tanuja Thurairajah
  72. Samuel J. Ponniah

Organisations

  1. Alliance Development Trust
  2. Centre for Human Rights Development
  3. Centre for Policy Alternatives
  4. Families of the Disappeared
  5. Hashtag Generation
  6. INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre
  7. Institute of Social Development
  8. International Centre for Ethnic Studies
  9. Law and Society Trust
  10. Manawa Shakthi Padanama, Galle
  11. Mannar Women’s Development Federation
  12. Muslim Women Development Trust
  13. National Peace Council
  14. Rights Now Collective for Democracy
  15. Rural Development Foundation
  16. The Grassrooted Trust
  17. Women’s Action Network
  18. Women’s Resource Centre