Proposed anti-terror Bill more dangerous than PTA, SC told

Counsel appearing for petitioners challenging the constitutionality of the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill yesterday told the Supreme Court that the legislation could significantly curtail individual liberty and be more dangerous than the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).

The submissions were made when 25 Special Determination petitions challenging the Bill were taken up before a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Justices Achala Wengappuli and Sampath Abayakoon.

President’s Counsel Hejaaz Hizbullah, appearing for several petitioners, including two journalists and former PTA detainees, submitted that the Bill would significantly expand the powers of law enforcement officers to search and arrest suspects.

Hizbullah, who himself was detained for 22 months under the PTA, said the existing law permitted arrests by police officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector, whereas Clause 19 of the proposed Bill would empower any police officer, as well as members of the armed forces and Coast Guard officers, to search and arrest suspects.

He also submitted that the proposed law would curtail the powers of Magistrates to discharge suspects where there was insufficient evidence to proceed against them, by requiring the Attorney General’s consent for such discharges.

Under Clause 37, the Magistrate’s power to discharge a suspect would effectively be removed, leaving the Magistrate to act as a “rubber stamp”, Hizbullah argued.

Referring to cases filed under the PTA, he cited the discharge of former Inter-University Students’ Federation convener Wasantha Mudalige and former DIG Nalaka Silva after Magistrates were satisfied that they had not committed offences under the Act.

Hizbullah also drew the Court’s attention to Clause 60, which he said would empower a Magistrate to impose restriction orders on a suspect merely on an allegation that the person was preparing to commit an offence under the proposed legislation.

Meanwhile, President’s Counsel Ali Sabry, appearing for another petitioner, questioned the suitability of the proposed definition of terrorism for Sri Lanka.

He noted that the definition had been drawn from legislation in countries including Canada, New Zealand and Australia, but warned that its adoption in Sri Lanka could be dangerous given the country’s history of alleged misuse of legal provisions.

“We do not have post-enactment review like other countries. Once laws are enacted, they become law. Your Lordships’ Court now has a historic opportunity to carefully examine these provisions and make a determination,” Sabry submitted.

He argued that the definition of terrorism in the Bill was vague and could result in acts that were not necessarily criminal in nature being treated as offences.

Sabry further submitted that under the proposed legislation, a suspect could be detained for up to one year and subsequently kept on remand for another year.

“This is a Bill that suppresses dissent and freedom of expression,” he submitted.