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 18th of January 2024 challenging the Constitutionality of the Bill titled “Anti-Terrorism”. The Bill was published in the Gazette on the 15th of September 2023 but was only tabled in the Parliament [the first reading of the Bill] on the 10th 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 1st 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 11 December, 2023

Summary Findings and Overview of the Confidence in Democratic Governance Index – December 2023

This report presents the summary findings and overview of the Confidence in Democratic Governance Index (Wave 5) conducted by Social Indicator (SI), the survey research arm of the Centre for Policy Alternatives. This poll was designed to capture the public sentiments on the country’s current state of governance. Fieldwork for the study was conducted from 6th to 23rd of November 2023.

Please download the English report here.

Please download the Sinhala report here

Please download the Tamil report here

CPA Comms Officer on 8 December, 2023

FAQs on the Online Safety Bill

This document provides a brief Q and A of the controversial Online Safety Bill. The version of the Bill that is examined contains the proposed Committee Stage amendments made by the Attorney-General, which were subsequently approved by the Supreme Court. For an explanation of the differences between the originally Gazetted Online Safety Bill and the amendments proposed, please see here.

To read the full document in English Click Here

To read the full document in Sinhala Click Here

To read the full document in Tamil Click Here

 

CPA Comms Officer on 16 November, 2023

Supreme Court Decision in SC FR 91/2023 – Challenging the Prevention of Terrorism 
(De-radicalization from holding violent extremist religious ideology) Regulations No. 01 of 2021

On the 21st of March 2021, the Government published in the Gazette regulations purportedly made under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, namely the Prevention of Terrorism (De-radicalization from holding violent extremist religious ideology) Regulations No. 01 of 2021. Through these regulations, the Government attempted to set up a system of ‘rehabilitation’ for categories of persons holding ‘extremist’ ideologies, to which they could be referred even before they had been found guilty of an offense by a court of law. The scheme would deny parties of due process and had the potential for abuse and the restriction of personal liberties. The court’s finding is that PTA “(De-radicalization from holding violent extremist religious ideology) Regulations No.1 of 2021 are in violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioners.

In April 2021, The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, challenged the validity of the regulations by way of a Fundamental Rights Application (SC FR 91/2021), along with two other similar Applications (SC FR 106/2021 and SC FR 107/2021), and this set of cases was heard by the Supreme Court. In January 2022, the Supreme Court granted the Petitioners leave to proceed in the case and, recognizing the serious potential for abuse under the guidelines, also issued interim relief which prevented the scheme from being put into force until the final hearing of the Application.

On the 13th of November 2023, the Supreme Court delivered its final judgment in the Application (https://www.cpalanka.org/centre-for-policy-alternatives-v-attorney-general-sc-fra-91-2021/), and found that the Regulations contained in the scheme violated Articles 10 (the Freedom of thought, conscience and religions), 12(1) (equal protection of the law) and 13 (Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and punishment etc.) of the Constitution. The court thus declared the scheme under the Regulations null and void. In a symbolic gesture, the State was also directed to pay each Petitioner Rs. 25,000/- as costs.

Important Findings in the Judgment

On the objection of the Attorney General that the Application should be dismissed as the Petitioners were not personally affected by the Regulations;

“The contours of fundamental rights jurisdiction have expanded over the years, and public interest litigation in response to violations and imminent violations of fundamental rights is no longer a new phenomenon in the global arena…. (page 8)

…

…every person shall be entitled to apply to the Supreme Court, as provided by Article 126, in respect of the infringement or imminent infringement by executive or administrative action, of a fundamental right to which such person is entitled under the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Constitution. (page 8)”

On the importance of the freedom of thought, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution;

“The freedom of thought, as enshrined in our fundamental rights, stands out as a cornerstone of democracy. The freedom of thought ensures that a person’s mind remains beyond scrutiny. To infringe upon the freedom of thought is to undermine the very essence of a democratic society, for it is within the realm of individual thought that the roots of self-expression, personal liberty, human dignity and the flourishing of all other fundamental rights are nurtured. (page 11)

…

According to Article 10, the State cannot prevent a person from thinking or believing in some religious ideology on the basis that such thinking or belief is irrational or extreme. As I have already stated, Article 10 sets an absolute bar against such infringements. (page 11)”

On the danger of abuse of the vague term ‘extremist religious ideology;

“The definition of “extremist religious ideology” presents inherent difficulties as religious beliefs may vary widely among individuals, with one person’s religious ideology potentially appearing extreme to another. In the absence of clarity, there is a risk of arbitrary decisions being made where certain attitudes, behaviors, attire, etc. can also be deemed as signs of extremist religious ideologies. (page 11)

…

People cannot be prosecuted, nay persecuted, for merely “holding religious ideology” which the State thinks to be “violent and extremist”. (page 14)”

When can the state step in to address a threat of violence;

“All seem to be in agreement that when there is an imminent threat in pursuit of “violent extremist religious ideology”, the State can step in to prevent the harm for the greater benefit of all others. However, prevention of harm cannot be the pretext for arbitrary use of power to curb the rights of the People. (page 14)”

On the need for clarity in the law;

“If the stated objective of the Regulations is not clear, how can their impact and applicability be properly assessed or understood? The existence of such real uncertainties within legal provisions may give rise to subjective interpretation and arbitrary enforcement of the law, which may undermine the rule of law and legal predictability. This violates Article 12(1) of the Constitution which states “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law.” (page 15)”

 

Download the full Statement in English

To Read the Supreme Court Judgement