Sri Lanka’s Organised Crime Bill: The Media Blackout and Surveillance Questions Parliament Cannot Ignore

A new Amnesty International assessment broadens scrutiny of the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill beyond detention and confessions. Court reporting, communications privacy and confidential professional relationships are now central to the public-interest test.

Amnesty International has called for Sri Lanka’s proposed Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill to be withdrawn, arguing that it grants authorities sweeping powers and weakens fair-trial and human-rights safeguards. The government tabled the bill in Parliament on 6 October as part of its response to organised crime.

Amnesty’s conclusions are an advocacy organisation’s legal assessment, not a judicial ruling. Parliament and the government are entitled to argue that stronger tools are necessary against sophisticated criminal networks. But extraordinary powers require correspondingly strong safeguards, particularly where journalism, legal representation and private communications may be affected.

A court-reporting restriction is an accountability issue

Amnesty says the bill can ban media reporting on court proceedings. Restrictions may sometimes be justified to protect witnesses, children, ongoing investigations or fair trials, but blanket or overly broad secrecy can remove the public’s ability to scrutinise how exceptional criminal powers are being used.

Any restriction should therefore be necessary, narrowly tailored, subject to judicial reasoning and open to challenge. Parliament should make explicit what journalists may report, when restrictions expire and whether courts must consider less restrictive alternatives.

Warrantless communications data raises a second problem

Amnesty says the bill empowers police to obtain personal information from telecommunications, satellite, digital and data service providers — including subscriber identity, call records and device-location information — without a court order. The organisation warns this could expose journalists’ contacts, lawyers’ communications and organisers of lawful assemblies to surveillance risks.

That concern deserves a direct government answer. Access to communications metadata can reveal networks of association even without the content of a conversation. A rights-respecting regime should define necessity thresholds, require independent authorisation except in tightly defined emergencies, record each use and provide meaningful oversight.

Fighting organised crime and protecting rights are not competing goals

Organised criminal networks can threaten witnesses, corrupt institutions and exploit digital systems. Effective investigation is a legitimate public interest. But investigative effectiveness is strengthened, not weakened, when evidence is obtained through rules capable of surviving judicial scrutiny.

Amnesty also criticises provisions on police confessions, prolonged detention, compelled information and evidence of group membership. HRCSL has separately called for substantial revision of the bill. Taken together, these interventions give Parliament an opportunity to publish a clause-by-clause response before proceeding.

Lanka Witness assessment: Sri Lanka does not need to choose between confronting organised crime and protecting journalism, privacy and due process. Parliament should demand judicial control over intrusive data access, tightly reasoned reporting restrictions, protection for legitimate professional privilege and clear remedies when powers are abused.

Illustrative image: Parliament of Sri Lanka. Lanka Witness uses this image solely to identify the legislative setting; it does not imply wrongdoing by any individual member of Parliament.