Prevention of Terrorism Act (Sri Lanka)

The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), formally known as the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act No. 48 of 1979, is a controversial piece of legislation in Sri Lanka. Originally intended as a temporary measure to address separatist movements, it has remained in effect for decades and has been heavily criticized for its broad powers of arrest, detention, and interrogation.

The PTA grants law enforcement extensive authority to detain individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activities. Suspects can be arrested without a warrant and detained for extended periods, initially 18 months, without charge. This period has been subject to change through amendments. Critics argue this power allows for arbitrary detention and increases the risk of torture and ill-treatment.

Key provisions of the PTA that have drawn criticism include:

• Vague Definition of Terrorism: The act's definition of terrorism is considered overly broad and ambiguous, potentially encompassing a wide range of activities beyond violent acts.
• Admissibility of Confessions: Confessions made to police officers are admissible as evidence in court, even without independent corroboration. This provision has been linked to allegations of coerced confessions and torture.
• Limited Judicial Oversight: The act restricts judicial review of detention orders, limiting the ability of courts to intervene in cases of alleged abuse.

Throughout its history, the PTA has been used to target not only suspected terrorists, but also political opponents, journalists, and human rights activists. Numerous reports from international organizations, including the United Nations and Amnesty International, have documented allegations of torture, arbitrary detention, and unfair trials under the PTA.

Successive Sri Lankan governments have defended the PTA as necessary for national security, particularly during the civil war and in the aftermath of terrorist attacks. However, there have been growing calls for the act's repeal or substantial amendment to bring it in line with international human rights standards. Concerns center on ensuring fair trials, preventing torture, and protecting fundamental freedoms of expression and association. Attempts have been made to introduce amendments to address some of the most egregious provisions, but the core issues remain a point of contention both domestically and internationally.