FAZLI RUMI
COLOMBO : Sri Lanka’s human rights situation has been put on a spotlight once again after a recent resolution by the European Parliament, prompting the Sri Lanka government to be on defense of her rights and also save the prospect of withdrawal of the GSP+ given to Sri Lanka.
Talk of repealing or major review of the prevention of terrorism act has become the headlines in all major news and discussion in the legislature. Some detainees under this act have also been released after a long period in custody.
First, the law should clearly define terrorism, not leave room for this law to be used to apply with its vague clauses to arrest innocent persons, political opponents or for persecuting enemies. The very purpose why the law has been enacted should not be the cause for it to be condemned. International Law defines terrorism clearly as follows in summary:
- Knowingly (with prior knowledge) participating, instructing, harboiring, concealing or contributing to any activity of a terrorist group, enhancing its ability to carry a terrorist activity, individually or collectively. Knowingly collecting or providing or using assets, funds or property for such activities.
The premise that the accused knowingly helped a terrorist or a group must be seriously established or investigated before arresting that person under PTA act, as detaining him indefinitely can ruin a person’s life forever, if he is found to be innocent. The safeguard of a ‘specific intent’ to commit a terrorism act should be applied when enforcing the law.
As some analyst points out, like Muheed Jeeran, the law is too old, arbitrarily used sometimes, and under the modern context is not up to date to meet the present day needs or to match the international standards because it has not been reviewed. Terrorism laws in Canada and Britain goes through a mandatory review every three years, while here it has to be spotlighted to do so. The previous government promised a review and was never been able to do, but the current government which has a strong mandate can do it if it has the will power. There are signs that they would do so, as we listen to the speeches of the Justice Minister.
There are discreet electronic surveillance schemes available now to collect evidence, wire tap authorization can be used too to monitor a suspect and collect credible evidence to submit to court once arrested, rather than keeping the suspect indefinitely without charges. It’s difficult to collect evidence under custody because no more surveillance can be done, so if existing evidence is inadequate, then it is likely charges have to be made up to justify arrest or the suspect has to be left scot free, mostly through a court of law. ( The writer, is a Colombo times correspondent, and a lecturer at FRC).
