Centre for Policy Alternatives

CPA Comms Officer on 7 February, 2024

Statement on the Online Safety Act No. 09 of 2024

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is concerned with the process followed in enacting the Online Safety Act (OSA). It raises serious questions in terms of law-making and its impact on constitutional democracy in Sri Lanka. CPA has previously raised these issues but notes with disappointment the continued practice. The process of drafting the OSA was shrouded in secrecy. The rushed manner of its passage raises questions as to the intentions of the Government in enacting a law that has significant implications for fundamental rights and the rule of law in Sri Lanka. CPA has previously commented on the substance and process followed with the Bill and challenged its constitutionality. In light of recent events surrounding the enactment of the OSA, CPA condemns the enactment of such a draconian law that can further limit freedom of speech and the right to dissent.

It is with concern that CPA notes the issues surrounding committee stage amendments of 24^th of January 2024. With the Supreme Court ruling requiring 31 amendments for the passage of the Bill with a simple majority in Parliament, questions were raised concerning the compliance with Article 78(3) of the Constitution which states that “Any amendment proposed to a Bill in Parliament shall not deviate from the merits and principles of such Bill”.

CPA at the outset noted that the committee stage amendments proposed were substantial alternations, requiring the Bill to be withdrawn and re-gazetted. Despite this, the Government proceeded with the Bill, while failing to adopt mandatory changes required by the Supreme Court to pass the law with a simple majority.

For example, the Supreme Court required that the State ensures that all persons involved in investigations maintain confidentiality of information obtained from the subject of investigations. However, the current Act contains no such protection (see page 60 of the determination). It was also determined by the Court that the inclusion of terminology such as “malicious” and “wantonly” was vague (see page 48 of the determination), yet, the OSA continues to use such wording in Section 14. Moreover, it was determined that certain services, such as emails that are the only user-generated content enabled by the service or SMS/MMS services, must be exempted from the OSA (see pages 59 to 60 of the determination). However, these changes were not made and the provisions on which the Supreme Court raised concerns continue under Section 27 of the OSA, thus raising concerns that the Supreme Court’s decision was selectively ignored.

The Government’s rush to enact the OSA and its disregard for the Supreme Court determination has resulted in a constitutional crisis, raising questions about the legality of the OSA. Moreover, by intentionally undermining the determination of the Supreme Court, the Government is setting a dangerous precedent that has implications for the rule of law and separation of powers in Sri Lanka.

These concerns are also in the context of multiple other issues with the OSA that have been previously raised by CPA such as the broad powers of the Online Safety Commission, vague terminology and the role of experts, among others.

In light of these and other concerns, CPA urges the Government to review the process and substance of the OSA, take immediate steps to repeal the OSA and introduce a law that genuinely addresses the concerns of online safety. Further, CPA calls on the Government to have a transparent and inclusive law-making process that provides time for stakeholder consultations and review. The processes followed with the enactment of the Personal Data Protection Act No. 09 of 2022 and Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016 are some examples where sufficient time was taken to ensure the law-making process was transparent and that it factored in diverse viewpoints. Such practices of good governance are fundamental for Sri Lanka at its present stage of recovery and reform.

Click Here to download the statement in Sinhala

Click Here to download the statement in Tamil

Click Here to download the statement in English

CPA Comms Officer on 24 January, 2024

The Anti-Terrorism Law: A Draconian Legacy

The Minister of Justice recently presented to Parliament the Anti–Terrorism Bill, and its first reading took place on the 10^th of January 2024. While this Bill is wrought with problems, two main issues with the Bill remain the drafting process and the impact that the Bill will have on the liberties of the people, minorities and dissidents against the Government in particular.

Originally, the Government presented to Parliament a ‘Counter–Terrorism Bill’ in 2018. While it was challenged in the Supreme Court where parts of the Bill were given the green light, the Government never proceeded with the Bill. Later, in March 2023, a new Bill was published in the Gazette, this time called the ‘Anti–Terrorism Bill’, which, in form was similar to the former CTA, but in substance was more draconian in effect in some aspects. The criticism against this Bill was strong and widespread, with many parts of civil society coming together to voice their concerns regarding the Bill. In response to this, the Government announced that it was withdrawing the Bill, and called for proposals for changes. Thereafter, a new version of the Bill was published on the 15^th of September 2023, but despite the public opinions submitted, the new version of the ATA was in most respects identical to the former. The Bill was then published in the draft Order Paper of Parliament, but it was never presented to Parliament. On the 18^th of October 2023, the Speaker announced that the Bill had once again been withdrawn.

The Bill that has now been presented to Parliament now appears to be the same September 2023 version of the Anti-Terrorism Bill. While many steps have taken place in the legislative process with versions of the Bill being presented and withdrawn at various times, one of the most important aspects of the law-making process has been totally neglected – hearing and considering opinions of the public, who are inevitably the most important stakeholders. Calls for public opinion have largely been a farce with the AT Bill, as it often is with laws drafted in Sri Lanka, and the result is a law that is largely unrepresentative of the needs of the people of the Country.

As has been a trend in Sri Lanka, the drafting of the AT Bill has been done in the dark, and despite the outcry against it, in fact, it is a minority of Sri Lankans who are even aware of this law that will restrict their rights if passed. A poll conducted by Centre for Policy Alternatives in November 2023 revealed that only 38.5% of the Sri Lankan public were aware of the proposed Anti–Terrorism Bill and a major 72.6.% of this number disapproved of the Bill citing that those in power will misuse the Bill for their own benefit.

Effective anti-terrorism efforts must focus on the causes of terrorism, and what drives people into such behaviors. The AT Bill however, for the most part, follows the footsteps of its predecessor, the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act, which, for decades, has in itself been a tool of State-sponsored terror used to suppress minorities, journalists, human rights defenders and even ordinary citizens who have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. This dark legacy of the PTA and the widespread opposition to its continuance as a part of our legislation should have been considered when drafting a new law.

The law in itself opens up to be used to deal with more than just serious acts of terrorism. Considering the timing of when the AT Bill was first published, in March 2023, and the broad and vague definitions of the offence of terrorism contained in the Bill, it certainly seems intended to also be used as a tool to quell any protests that may arise against the Government. It also gives the President wide powers, to issue curfews, proscription orders against organizations, and even make prevention orders that make any public or private place off limits to the people. Problems seen under the PTA, primarily that of prolonged Executive Detention also remain a part of this new draft law.

Both the process of making the AT Bill and its contents make it clear that this is a self–serving piece of legislation, aimed at protecting the Government, but with little to no heed paid to the actual needs of the people. If passed, the country will see itself doomed to more decades of suppression, torture and abuse.

Download the full document in English Click Here

Download the full document in Sinhala Click Here

Download the full document in Tamil Click Here

CPA Comms Officer on 23 January, 2024

The Online Safety Bill: A Trojan Horse

On the 18 th of September 2023, the Government of Sri Lanka published a Bill titled “Online
Safety” and this was subsequently tabled in Parliament on the 3 rd of October. The Bill aims
to establish an Online Safety Commission with a range of powers, including the ability to
direct persons and internet service providers to remove vaguely defined “prohibited
statements” from online platforms. With the Wickremesinghe-led Government ostensibly
resolved to make the Bill law, one must query the implications of the Sri Lankan online
space being policed with implications for free speech and dissent. Notably, the Online
Safety Bill seeks to imprison and/or fine those who could threaten to disrupt national
security or public order or even cause “ill-will” or “hostility” between different classes of
persons. Further, clauses exist to prohibit online communications that may “outrage
religious feelings” or statements that would cause “alarm” or “fear” to the public which may
have wider implications for fundamental rights and democracy. On the flip side,
proponents of the Bill have lauded it as one which seeks to combat child pornography.
However, these offences, already provided in existing laws, are a minor part of the Bill and
fall short of the abuse that women and children face online.
Civil society and others have critiqued the Bill, with 45 petitions filed in the Supreme Court
of Sri Lanka arguing that the Bill violated the fundamental rights of citizens contained
within the Constitution of Sri Lanka, and could only be passed by a referendum. By the 7 th of
November 2023, the Court determined that the Online Safety Bill could only be passed by
the Parliament of Sri Lanka if 31 amendments were made to the Bill, significantly changing
the scope of what was publicly presented.
Moreover, although at one time the Minister of Public Security promised to withdraw the
Bill and re-produce an amended version, the Bill is scheduled to be heard in Parliament on
the 23 rd of January 2024. This when many concerns continue to persist with no genuine
interest by the Government to engage with the public and others on ensuring the law
protects the rights of citizens and has the required safeguards to prevent abuse.
The timing of the Online Safety Bill is noteworthy. Over the last few months of 2023, the
Government of Sri Lanka, in addition to the Online Safety Bill, has proposed the
implementation of a controversial Anti-Terrorism Bill to replace the Prevention of
Terrorism Act and a Broadcasting Regulatory Authority Bill to regulate the content of
broadcasters. Thus, the Online Safety Bill simply fits into a wider web of laws to restrict
freedom of thought and expression with a chilling impact on our democracy.
The above concerns are in a context when there is a lack of awareness prevalent in the
general public. A poll conducted by the Centre for Policy Alternatives in November 2023
revealed that only 28.4% of the Sri Lankan public were aware of the proposed Online
Safety Bill and 71.1.% of this number disapproved of the Bill citing that those in power will
misuse the Bill for their own benefit. This Bill follows a pattern of a lack of stakeholder

consultation before publication and must be viewed in the context of Sri Lanka’s usage of
legislation to target critics, minorities and others, such as the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. With 71.6% of the Sri Lankan population unaware of the Bill,
there is a clear sign of a majority of the public being oblivious to initiatives that will erode
their fundamental right to free speech.
If the Bill is enacted by Parliament, the public is left with a patchwork statute,
masquerading under the guise of providing safe spaces online but in actual fact
empowering an ‘Online Safety Commission’ to censor critical public opinion and stifle the
dissent of opposing political voices. The fraught hope that such a future does not come to
pass now depends upon Members of Parliament.

Read the full Document in English Click Here

Read the full Document in Tamil Click Here

Read the full Document in Sinhala Click Here

CPA Comms Officer on 19 January, 2024

CPA Challenges the Anti-Terrorism Bill (SC/SD 04/2024)

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, filed a Petition in the Supreme Court on the 18^th of January 2024 challenging the Constitutionality of the Bill titled “Anti-Terrorism”. The Bill was published in the Gazette on the 15^th of September 2023 but was only tabled in the Parliament [the first reading of the Bill] on the 10^th of January 2024. CPA has extensively commented on this Bill, and its previous versions raising numerous concerns relating to this draconian piece of legislation.

CPA has raised concerns over the vague definitions in the Bill which may be a tool for abuse. Further, the continued use of long executive detention and the further strengthening of the already powerful Executive, particularly by giving the President powers to make curfew orders, proscription orders and prohibition orders are seen as critical issues.

CPA argues that the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill must be looked at through the lens of the legacy of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), which has been a source of terror over the past decades. Considering the abuse that minorities, journalists, and dissenters have faced under the PTA, any new counter-terror law must contain sufficient checks and balances, to prevent similar abuses from taking place in the future. Further, to be genuine in its efforts, any counter-terror law must be designed with the aim of addressing the root causes of terrorism, rather than empowering authorities to suppress a segment of the population.

CPA argues that the clauses of the Bill violate Articles 3, 4, 11, 12(1) and 13(2), 13(4), 13(5) and 14(1)(a) –(i) of the Constitution, and therefore cannot be enacted into law, except if approved by People at a Referendum in addition to a two-thirds vote of the whole number of the Members of Parliament in favour as required by Article 83(a) of the Constitution.

Download the document Click Here

CPA Comms Officer on 8 January, 2024

Statement on proposals to set up structures to address truth, unity and reconciliation in Sri Lanka

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) notes the publication of two bills in recent weeks, which could impact reconciliation and related issues in Sri Lanka. The first one titled Office for National Unity and Reconciliation Bill (the ONUR Bill) is presently before Parliament. The second is the publication of the bill for the Commission for Truth, Unity and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka (proposed commission) gazetted on the 1^st of January 2024. At the outset CPA notes that nearly fifteen years after the end of the war, Sri Lanka faces numerous challenges that have perpetuated the root causes of the conflict and impunity in our country. CPA firmly believes that efforts towards reconciliation must address the demands of the victims and initiate reforms aimed at genuine reckoning with Sri Lanka’s history. Both bills fail to address these concerns, and with it missing an opportunity at reconciliation, accountability and reform that is fundamental if Sri Lanka is to have lasting peace and stability.

A consideration of the ONUR Bill raises concerns on the role of the Office in “assisting and guiding” community level organisations in carrying out projects related to peace and reconciliation. This is a concern in a context when victims have little or no confidence that the government has a genuine interest in forming a cohesive national unity policy. The Bill should not be an excuse to legitimate and impose the Government’s narrative of reconciliation and should not be used as a tool to stamp out alternative narratives and undermine the voices of victims.

The second proposal, the proposed commission, also raises questions as to whether such a commission is required since successive governments of Sri Lanka have failed to implement the recommendations of past commissions. As such, with Sri Lanka’s history of commission fatigue and accountability deficit, this latest initiative holds little promise of addressing the demands of the victims.

In addition, both these efforts are being introduced at a time when concerns of ethnonationalism and land grabs are on the rise. CPA has continuously monitored these issues and is concerned of exacerbating triggers for conflict that threaten co-existence and urge the government that priority at present should be at implementing confidence building measures than subjecting victims and affected communities to more structures that merely add to the long list of commissions, committees and other state entities that make ambitious promises but fail to address the root causes of the conflict.

Furthermore, CPA has consistently noted that Sri Lanka faces a crisis of accountability. The lack of genuine efforts at accountability resulted in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopting several resolutions that recommends concrete action to secure justice for victims of human rights violations and economic crimes and address impunity. The structures proposed by these two Bills fall well short of Sri Lanka’s obligations in terms of these UNHRC resolutions. The growing list of emblematic cases & numerous setback with accountability in Sri Lanka has strengthened calls for international accountability, further exposing the lack of real commitment towards justice in the country.

CPA also notes that these bills are introduced when Sri Lanka is to be discussed at the UNHRC in 2024 and that these and other measures are likely to be used by the government to convince the international community of some progress with reconciliation. This is far from the truth when Sri Lanka is facing heightened ethnonationalism, continuing human rights violations and exacerbating inequalities, with the response by the state seeing a crackdown on dissent, arbitrary arrests and detentions that raises questions of legality and due process and increasing militarization. The introduction of the Online Safety Bill, the Anti-Terrorism Bill and other measures are some examples where Sri Lanka’s space for dissent is fast shrinking with fears of increasing authoritarian and militarized trends that erode the rule of law and threaten Sri Lanka’s fragile peace. In such a context, CPA urges the government to withdraw these bills and initiate a process at genuine confidence building measures and reform that addresses the multiple challenges confronting Sri Lanka.

Further comments on the Truth, Unity and Reconciliation Bill are forthcoming.

Read the full statement in English – Click Here

CPA Comms Officer on 15 December, 2023

Strategic Plan 2024

To read the full document Click Here

Page 5 of 195
« First
«
...
3
4
5
6
7
...
10
20
30
...
»
Last »