Proposed Organised Crime Bill Faces Criticism Over Police Powers, Privacy and Media Freedom

A political speaker has strongly criticised Sri Lanka’s proposed Prevention of Organised Crime Bill, arguing that its broad definitions and expanded law-enforcement powers could affect civil liberties, personal privacy and media freedom.

The speaker referred to the draft legislation, which they said was scheduled to be presented in Parliament after being gazetted on 6 October. While the stated purpose of the bill is to combat organised crime, the speaker argued that its provisions could potentially extend beyond serious criminal networks and affect ordinary members of the public.

Concerns over the definition of organised crime

According to the speaker, the bill uses broad definitions of organised criminal groups and serious offences. They argued that including offences such as obstructing police officers, theft, certain intellectual property violations, unlicensed gambling and selected wildlife-related offences could allow the legislation to be applied in circumstances beyond conventional organised criminal activity.

The speaker also questioned provisions that they said could allow authorities to consider factors such as clothing, hairstyles, tattoos, associations with known offenders and visits to particular locations when assessing whether someone belongs to an organised criminal group.

They warned that these criteria could lead to ordinary people being treated as suspects without sufficient evidence of involvement in serious criminal activity.

Police detention powers and access to legal safeguards

The speaker raised concerns about provisions they described as allowing suspects to be held by police for up to 72 hours before being presented to a magistrate. They also claimed that the draft could permit further detention through administrative orders, potentially extending the period of detention significantly.

The speaker argued that these powers could increase the risk of mistreatment in custody and weaken judicial oversight. They also questioned a provision they said would restrict magistrates’ ability to grant bail to people detained under the proposed legislation.

These interpretations have not been independently verified against the full, official text of the bill. The precise conditions, authorisation requirements and legal safeguards would need to be assessed directly from the draft legislation.

Questions over confession evidence and digital privacy

The speech also criticised provisions that the speaker interpreted as allowing statements made by accused persons to be used as evidence in circumstances where coercion may be alleged. They argued that such a provision could weaken protections against forced confessions.

The speaker further raised concerns about provisions they said could allow police to access phones, computers and other personal communication devices, obtain communications records and monitor certain activities.

They argued that access to sensitive personal information should be subject to clear legal safeguards and appropriate judicial oversight. The exact scope of the proposed powers and the circumstances in which court authorisation would be required need to be checked against the official draft.

Potential implications for media freedom

The speaker also expressed concern about provisions they interpreted as restricting the publication of information about court proceedings under the bill. They claimed that journalists could face imprisonment for reporting certain details of cases.

They argued that restrictions of this kind could affect press freedom, the public’s right to information and the ability to scrutinise law-enforcement conduct.

The speaker urged the government to explain the purpose and scope of the proposed provisions and to address concerns about fundamental rights before proceeding with the legislation.

The speech represents the speaker’s interpretation and criticism of the proposed bill. The claims about individual provisions should be checked against the official draft, and the final legal effect would depend on the legislation’s exact wording, any amendments and the applicable constitutional requirements.