That historical reality cannot and should not be disregarded. However, the circumstances in which legislation
was previously used must be distinguished from the question of whether its
provisions remain appropriate today.
The PTA was introduced in 1979,
during a period when Sri Lanka was confronting an emerging security crisis.
Over subsequent decades, its application became the subject of serious
criticism, particularly concerning prolonged
detention, allegations of abuse and inadequate safeguards. Those criticisms deserve acknowledgment, including when
examining the record of governments that previously exercised powers under the
Act.
Having
served in government during different periods of Sri Lanka's political history,
I recognise both the necessity of effective security
measures and the responsibility that accompanies extraordinary state powers.
During the fragile peace process, while serving as
Coordinating Secretary to my father, the late Hon.
W. J. M.
Lokubandara, who held responsibilities as Minister of Justice and National
Integration and Leader of the House, I observed the complexities of balancing
security considerations with efforts towards
a political settlement. Later, during his tenure as Speaker of Parliament, the country faced
the final and most intense stages of the armed conflict.
Following the war, my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament and Monitoring MP for the Ministry
of Defence and Urban Development brought me into contact with the challenges of
reconstruction, resettlement and the restoration of civilian life. Subsequent
responsibilities as Chief of Staff to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and
Parliamentary Affairs Secretary during his premiership provided further
exposure to the relationship between executive authority, Parliament and
constitutional governance.
These experiences reinforce an important principle: the exercise
of state power
must always be accompanied by accountability,
regardless of which political party holds office.
It would
be inconsistent to defend extraordinary powers without scrutiny
simply because they were
exercised by a previous administration. Equally, it would be irresponsible to
dismiss the genuine security challenges that confronted the country during the
war. The responsibility of political leadership is to learn from both
experiences.
The replacement of the PTA should therefore address the shortcomings identified over the years rather than reproduce them under a
different legislative title.
Lessons from post-war Sri Lanka
The experience
of rebuilding Sri Lanka after the war offers important lessons for the present
debate. The conclusion of military operations in 2009 did not automatically resolve the social,
economic and humanitarian
consequences of nearly three decades of conflict.
Large numbers
of displaced families required resettlement assistance. Infrastructure and
public services had to be restored, livelihoods rebuilt and communities supported in returning to normal civilian life.
In the Northern and Eastern
Provinces, restoring public
confidence was as important as rebuilding physical infrastructure.
The long-term
stability of a post-conflict society depends not only on the absence of armed
violence but also on the relationship between citizens and the institutions of
the state. This is particularly relevant to the Wanni, where
communities experienced some of the most severe
consequences of the conflict.
As the SLFP's current
District Leader for the Wanni,
I believe their
experiences must be recognised in discussions concerning national
security legislation. Communities that have lived through conflict understand
the importance of security. They also understand the consequences of prolonged
uncertainty, displacement and restrictions on civilian life.
A sustainable
national security framework must therefore consider both the prevention of
terrorism and the protection of public confidence. Legislation perceived as arbitrary or excessively broad
risks undermining the trust that is essential to lasting peace.
The ultimate
objective of national
security must be to create a society
in which citizens
feel protected by the law,
rather than fearful of its application.
Constitutional safeguards are essential to national security
One of the fundamental responsibilities of Parliament is to ensure
that legislation remains
consistent with the Constitution and the principles of democratic
governance. Counterterrorism laws are particularly sensitive because they authorise
powers that may significantly affect personal liberty.
The definition of offences, the
grounds for arrest, detention procedures, access to legal representation and judicial
supervision must therefore be examined carefully. Safeguards should not depend solely
on assurances about how the present administration intends to implement
the law.
Governments change.
Political priorities change.
The same legislation may be exercised by different
administrations under very different circumstances. Consequently, the strength
of a law must be judged by the protections contained within its provisions, not
merely by the intentions expressed by those introducing it.
A responsible
legislative process should also consider whether existing criminal laws,
investigative procedures and security institutions could be strengthened before
creating additional extraordinary powers. Where new powers are genuinely necessary, they should be clearly justified, proportionate to the
threats being addressed and subject to effective independent oversight.
This approach
would strengthen the legitimacy of counterterrorism legislation and reduce the possibility of its misuse.
