Trade unions and political activists rallied in Colombo on Friday, November 6, against two security bills that they say could expand police powers at the expense of civil liberties. The measures concern terrorism and organized crime. Both are proposals, not laws already in force, and their passage remains uncertain as lawmakers and judges consider objections to their scope.

Protesters challenge proposed powers, not an enacted law

The Associated Press reported that trade unions and political activists demonstrated in the Sri Lankan capital against the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill and the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill. Union activist Saman Rathnapriya described the proposals as draconian and warned that they could be used against people expressing dissent. His claims are allegations about potential abuse, not findings that either measure has already been applied.

The Daily Mirror reported on November 6 that the People’s Struggle Alliance had staged a protest against the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA) and proposed organised-crime legislation. Its representative Rajkumar Rajeevkanth said the protest was held to protect human rights, democratic freedoms and the rule of law, and called for fair legal procedures, judicial independence and an independent human rights review before any new anti-terrorism law. The alliance called for the PTA to be repealed without a replacement law of similar powers. Its demands included reviewing the proposed organised-crime legislation and ensuring every arrested person is brought before a judge without delay, informed of the charges and given access to a lawyer. Neither report establishes a reliable crowd count, so no attendance figure can be given.

The dispute is about a practical boundary: how much additional authority investigators need to tackle serious crime, and what safeguards should prevent that authority from being used against lawful political activity.

Sources: Sri Lanka unions protest bills expanding police powers and warn of abuses · Protest against PTA, proposed anti terrorism and organised crime Laws

Two bills entered Parliament on different dates

The counterterrorism proposal, formally titled the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, was presented by the justice minister on October 6, according to the parliamentary sitting record and the printed bill. Its text proposes replacing the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1979. Replacing that act is a stated legislative objective; no repeal has yet occurred through this proposal.

The separate Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill was issued as a Gazette supplement on October 6 and presented to Parliament on October 20. Parliament’s own tracker lists its current stage as first reading, without completed second or third readings or the speaker’s endorsement. The official text describes objectives including investigating serious criminal groups and strengthening domestic and international cooperation.

These formal documents settle a consequential confusion: the measures at issue are not the Public Security Ordinance or a supposed new Cyber Protection Bill. Those labels do not identify the two proposals now drawing objections. The distinction matters because the bills contain different powers, procedures and claimed public-security purposes.

Sources: PROTECTION OF THE STATE FROM TERRORISM · PREVENTION OF ORGANISED CRIMES · Parliament of Sri Lanka - Bills · Business of the House for October 6, 2026

Detention and evidence rules drive the rights concerns

The organized-crime draft would allow the public-security ministry secretary to issue detention orders lasting no more than two months at a time, up to an aggregate year under section 21. Section 20 directs a magistrate to give effect to an initial detention order when it is produced. Subsequent extensions involve a High Court procedure. These are provisions of a bill: they do not establish that someone has been detained under a newly enacted law.

Human Rights Watch argues that the proposed framework provides insufficient judicial safeguards. It objects to the potential admission of statements made to police, broad definitions of serious crime and group membership, and access to communications-related information. The organization warns that the combination could increase risks of arbitrary detention, ill-treatment and restrictions on expression. Those are the group’s assessment of possible outcomes, not a court ruling.

Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Commission has also urged withdrawal and substantial revision of the organized-crime bill. Its October 21 observations identify confessions, crime definitions and limits on judges’ discretion concerning bail and remand as concerns under constitutional and international rights standards.

Sources: PREVENTION OF ORGANISED CRIMES · Sri Lanka: Organized Crime Bill Violates Rights Standards · Legislative Reform

The government presents a crime-control rationale

Supporters of tougher legislation point to public-security responsibilities and the need to investigate organized criminal networks. The organized-crime bill explicitly presents itself as a measure to implement cooperation under the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. The anti-terrorism bill states a goal of protecting national security while replacing an older law that has faced sustained criticism.

Government spokesman Nalinda Jayatissa rejected rights activists’ allegations on Tuesday, November 3, according to the Associated Press, saying the proposed laws would not harm trade unions or media freedoms. That is the government’s assurance; it does not by itself resolve whether particular clauses could have broader consequences once implemented.

An important part of the political argument concerns consistency. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s National People’s Power alliance came to office in 2024 with a pledge to remove oppressive legislation. Protesters argue that retaining expansive powers under new titles would fall short of that commitment. The government’s public-security objective and the critics’ demand for enforceable limits therefore need to be assessed against the actual clauses, rather than slogans alone.

Sources: Sri Lanka unions protest bills expanding police powers and warn of abuses · PROTECTION OF THE STATE FROM TERRORISM · PREVENTION OF ORGANISED CRIMES · Sri Lanka: Organized Crime Bill Violates Rights Standards

Constitutional petitions add another decision point

The Centre for Policy Alternatives says it challenged the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill in the Supreme Court, arguing that provisions on detention, arrest, bail, confessions and publication restrictions conflict with constitutional guarantees. Its petition asks the court to determine whether specified provisions would require more than an ordinary parliamentary majority, potentially including a referendum. Those are the petitioners’ requests, not a determination already delivered by judges.

The court process has since moved beyond the filing stage. News 1st reported that hearings on 26 petitions had concluded and that the attorney general’s written submissions were due on November 9. The outlet reported that the solicitor general said petitioners’ concerns could be considered. No final constitutional determination was established by the materials reviewed for this report.

That sequence makes the next steps conditional: lawmakers may need to address judicial findings or proposed changes before a final vote. A petition does not automatically establish unconstitutionality; equally, the absence of a final decision is not an endorsement of disputed provisions.

Sources: The Centre for Policy Alternatives vs. The Attorney General SC SD 178/2026 (Challenging the Bill titled the Prevention of Organised Crimes) · Supreme Court Wraps Up Hearings on Organized Crime Bill · Parliament of Sri Lanka - Bills

What readers should watch before any vote

The Associated Press reported that debate and voting were expected in the coming weeks. But the parliamentary bill tracker available on November 7 did not supply a specific voting date for the organized-crime bill. Nor did the sources reviewed establish a new presidential instruction on November 5 to accelerate the proposals. Assertions about an imminent passage date or presidential fast-tracking would therefore go beyond the verified record.

The first concrete checkpoint is the Supreme Court’s handling of the constitutional challenges, including written submissions and any resulting determination. The second is whether the government revises detention, confession, search or media-reporting clauses. The third is the publication of parliamentary order papers showing when each measure will return for debate. On November 5, President Dissanayake said the government was willing to cut the organized-crime bill's initial detention period from 72 hours to 48 hours and to remove provisions on tattoos and Excise Ordinance offences, following Supreme Court considerations.

For now, neither proposal has become the law governing these powers. The central question is whether Sri Lanka can strengthen its response to terrorism and organized crime while establishing limits that courts can enforce and ordinary citizens can understand. The November 6 demonstrations put that question before the public; the legal and parliamentary answers are still pending.

Sources: Sri Lanka unions protest bills expanding police powers and warn of abuses · PREVENTION OF ORGANISED CRIMES · Supreme Court Wraps Up Hearings on Organized Crime Bill · Parliament of Sri Lanka - Bills · President Urges Religious Leaders to Become Active Partners in National Drive to Free Sri Lanka from Illicit Drugs