Sri Lanka’s Organised Crime Bill: A Fresh Rights Warning Now Reaches GSP+

Human Rights Watch has joined the Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International in challenging key safeguards in the proposed organised-crime law. The issue is no longer whether Sri Lanka needs strong tools against criminal networks. It is whether those tools reproduce powers the country has promised to reform.

30 October 2026 • Lanka Witness Evidence Desk

Human Rights Watch published a fresh assessment on 29 October warning that Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill risks arbitrary detention, torture and other rights violations. The organisation argues that provisions permitting police confessions, prolonged detention and broad search and surveillance powers could repeat patterns associated with the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

These are the findings and legal assessments of Human Rights Watch, not a judgment by a Sri Lankan court. The government has a legitimate responsibility to investigate organised criminal groups, protect witnesses and prosecute serious offences. But the method matters: exceptional powers require exceptional safeguards.

Journalism and confidential sources are part of the test

Human Rights Watch says the bill would restrict media reporting of court proceedings without court permission and could criminalise publication of information identifying victims. Amnesty International separately warned on 27 October that police could obtain subscriber identities, call records and device-location data from service providers without a court order.

For journalists, lawyers and whistleblowers, communications metadata can expose networks of confidential contacts even without revealing the content of a conversation. Any such power should therefore be tightly defined, independently authorised, necessary and proportionate, with remedies for abuse.

The GSP+ dimension cannot be wished away

Human Rights Watch explicitly links the bill to Sri Lanka’s commitments to the European Union under GSP+, arguing that reproducing abusive features of the PTA would weaken compliance with human-rights commitments connected to the trade arrangement. That does not mean a single NGO assessment determines Sri Lanka’s trade status. Decisions on GSP+ belong to EU institutions under their legal processes. It does mean Colombo should expect the legislation to be read internationally alongside its promises on PTA reform, due process and civic space.

The strongest government response would therefore be substantive rather than rhetorical: publish the drafting rationale, hold open consultations, explain why ordinary criminal procedure is insufficient for each exceptional power, and amend clauses that cannot survive a necessity-and-proportionality test.

Three independent warnings deserve a parliamentary answer

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has already urged withdrawal and substantial revision. Amnesty has called for withdrawal. Human Rights Watch now says the bill should be rejected in its current form and redrafted through genuine consultation. Parliament need not accept every criticism, but it should answer them clause by clause before voting.

Lanka Witness assessment: Fighting organised crime and protecting civil liberties are not competing objectives. A law that produces convictions through reliable evidence, judicial oversight and fair trials will be stronger — domestically and internationally — than one that inherits the legitimacy problems of emergency-era legislation.

Image: Grayswoodsurrey / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.