Colombo, Oct. 21 (Daily Mirror) - Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the Special Determination petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Bill titled the Protection of the State from Terrorism yesterday informed the Supreme Court that the proposed legislation would significantly curtail people’s liberty, making it far more dangerous than the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
They made these remarks when 25 Special Determination petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Bill, titled the Protection of the State from Terrorism, were taken up for hearing before a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Justices Achala Wengappuli and Sampath Abayakoon.
Counsel Hejaaz Hizbullah appearing for several petitioners, including two journalists and several former detainees held under the PTA informed the Supreme Court that the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill significantly expands the powers of law enforcement officers to arrest and search suspects, making it far more dangerous than the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
Hejaaz Hizbullah is an Attorney-at-Law who was incarcerated for 22 months under the PTA.
Hizbullah submitted to Court that a person could be arrested by a police officer of a rank above that of Sub-Inspector, whereas Clause 19 of the proposed Bill empowers any police officer, as well as members of the armed forces and Coast Guard officers, to search and arrest suspects.
Hizbullah further submitted that the proposed legislation curtails the power of Magistrates to discharge suspects when there is insufficient evidence to proceed against them, by requiring the consent of the Attorney General for such discharges.
Under Clause 37, a Magistrate’s power to discharge a suspect would effectively be taken away, leaving the Magistrate to act merely as a “rubber stamp”, he argued.
Referring to previous cases under the PTACcounsel cited the discharge of former Inter-University Students’ Federation convener Wasantha Mudalige and DIG Nalaka Silva by Magistrates after they were satisfied that the suspects had not committed offences under the Act.
Hizbullah also drew the Court’s attention to Clause 60 of the Bill, submitting that it empowers a Magistrate to impose restriction orders on a suspect based on an allegation that the person is preparing to engage in the commission of an offence under the proposed legislation.
Ali Sabry PC, appearing for another petitioner, questioned the suitability of the proposed definition of terrorism for Sri Lanka, noting that it had been drawn from legislation in countries including Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
He warned that adopting such a definition 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 criminalise acts that were not necessarily criminal in nature.
Under the proposed legislation, a suspect could be detained for up to one year and subsequently held on remand for a further year, Sabry said.
“This is a Bill that suppresses dissent and freedom of expression,” he submitted.