COLOMBO — Controversial legislation moving through Sri Lanka’s parliament is raising concerns about freedom of expression ahead of elections expected next year.
An Online Safety Bill presented to the legislature this past week has drawn sharp criticism, including from former Human Rights Commissioner Ambika Satkunanathan, who described it as another “draconian law” aimed at curbing dissent.
The government insists it merely aims “to promote responsible utilization of online platforms.”
Satkunanathan said the bill outlines vague and overly broad definitions and offenses, questioning the substantial powers it would grant an Online Safety Commission appointed by President Ranil Wickremesinghe. If the bill is enacted, the commission would have the power to issue orders to internet service providers, potentially leading to the suppression of social media content with limited regard for due process, critics say.
The proposed bill “violates many constitutionally protected fundamental rights, as well as Sri Lanka’s international legal obligations as a party to many U.N. conventions,” Satkunanathan said.
The internet bill is not the only legislation stirring unease in a country still recovering from its worst economic crisis and massive protests that prompted the resignation of former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa last year. Suspicion of authority runs deep, after what some describe as misuse of legislation by successive governments in the past. Several activists who led the demonstrations against Rajapaksa were arrested and detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which is now expected to be replaced with a new Anti-Terrorism Law that some consider even harsher.
Human rights lawyer Bhavani Fonseka described Sri Lanka as standing at a critical juncture — with elections on the horizon, a still-fragile economy and growing public discontent. She warned that laws like the Online Safety Bill could hinder the people’s ability to express themselves and challenge the status quo, potentially undermining the democratic process.
“Last year we saw citizens come out to the streets, mobilize, criticize, challenge and even question those in power,” she told Nikkei Asia. “They demanded a system change and the abolishing of the executive presidency and greater political accountability, but this proposed bill goes against all those demands.”
Fonseka questioned the lack of prior consultation and opaque drafting process. “It’s a very worrying piece of legislation and if implemented in this form, it will have a severe implication for Sri Lanka’s governance, human rights and democracy.”
The government considers the Online Safety Bill necessary and continues to move ahead despite the criticism. Cabinet Spokesman and Minister Bandula Gunawardena told media that the main objective is to protect the public and national security by preventing the spread of harmful content.
“Our intention is not to obstruct freedom of expression,” he said.
Tabled in Parliament this past Tuesday by Public Security Minister Tiran Alles, the bill seeks to “establish the Online Safety Commission; to make provisions to prohibit online communication of certain statements of fact in Sri Lanka; to prevent the use of online accounts and inauthentic online accounts for prohibited purposes; to make provisions to identify and declare online locations used for prohibited purposes in Sri Lanka; [and] to suppress the financing and other support of communication of false statements of fact and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
It would also enhance police powers, even allowing officers to delegate authority to private “experts” to assist investigations and demand that citizens hand over documents and devices.
The International Commission of Jurists in a Sept. 29 statement called the legislation an assault on freedom of expression, opinion and information, warning it would further diminish Sri Lanka’s already shrinking civic space.
A day after Alles brought the bill before Parliament, a coalition of opposition members, including representatives from the main opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) alliance, petitioned the Supreme Court against it.
“Our fear is that this is not really for social media regulations, but [that] the government will use this as a tool the same way they used the PTA and certain acts such as ICCPR for their benefit,” said Rehan Jayawickreme, vice chairman of the SJB Youth Front, referring to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“We are hoping to get a stay order when the court hears the petition,” Jayawickreme told Nikkei Asia.
Even the ICCPR Act, which is meant to safeguard human rights and deter discrimination, has been employed to stifle expression, critics say. Minorities and artists, including writers and comedians, have been arrested under the act, ostensibly for criticizing Buddhism.
Marisa de Silva, an activist based in Colombo, voiced her own apprehensions about the Online Safety Bill, noting how physical demonstrations have been constrained since Wickremesinghe was appointed president. She emphasized the importance of looking at the bill not in isolation, but in conjunction with other oppressive laws already in place or in the pipeline, such as the anti-terror law.
“We can see how laws such as even the ICCPR are being used and manipulated by the state to silence dissent,” de Silva said. “This indicates a dangerous trajectory, as people will not only be denied from exercising their fundamental rights to protest and free speech, but could also result in people self-censoring.”
Besides the Online Safety Bill, many are concerned about the Anti-Terrorism Law.
Sri Lanka is still healing from the devastating Easter 2019 suicide bombings of churches and hotels — with questions continuing to swirl over the provenance of the attacks. But like the internet bill and other laws, skeptics fear legislation designed to address a real issue will be used in less legitimate ways.
Earlier this year, the International Federation of Journalists said the new terrorism law “would expand the legal definition of terrorist offenses beyond international guidelines and include the infliction of serious damage to any place of public use, the obstruction of essential services, and participation in an unlawful assembly deemed by the government to be connected to ‘terrorism,'” among other sweeping stipulations. The IFJ’s report quoted the head of Sri Lanka’s Federation of Media Employees Trade Union as saying that the provisions are “more draconian and tyrannical in nature compared to its predecessor PTA.”
Jayawickreme, the opposition youth leader, said his party and others will object to the terrorism law as soon as it is submitted to Parliament. “We can’t go to court unless it’s tabled in Parliament,” he said. “But the minute they table it, we will file a petition against that. We have already drafted the petition.”
Source : NikkeiAsia
