Repeal of Online Safety Act vital for economic salvation of Sri Lanka

WHILE the economy of Sri Lanka has achieved some degree of stabilisation after the most dire crisis in history, progress along a growth trajectory remains a clear imperative. Fragility of the current situation has been massively increased by the devastating tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, making our country's exports to the United States especially apparel and rubber products - starkly vulnerable. Against this backdrop the GSP+ facility, affording preferential access to the vast markets of the European Union, becomes a lifeline for our exports. Exemption from import duty for a wide array of products involves an advantage of immense value.

- By Professor G.L. Peiris

internationally accepted test of “clear and present danger” (Schenk vs. U.S. 249 U.S. 247 at p.52 (1919)) is in no way reflected as a qualifying element in the Sri Lankan legislation.

Overarching authority of the commission

The crux of the pivotal offence is a “false statement”. The truth or falsity of the statement complained of, is a matter to be determined at the untrammelled discretion of the Online Safety Commission, the central authority created by the law. It is composed of 5 members appointed by the President, with the concurrence of the Constitutional Council.

A vital circumstance is that members of the Online Safety Commission, unlike the membership of other independent Commissions established under the Constitution, are not recommended for appointment by the Constitutional Council. The initiative is that of the President, not the Constitutional Council, the function of the latter being confined to “approval” (Section 5 (1)). This is a marked, and in principle unacceptable, departure from the pattern of constitutional provisions governing the appointment of independent Commissions.

This difference of approach undeniably impacts public perceptions regarding performance of the Commission’s functions in a spirit of total independence — a result much to be regretted, in view of the awesome sweep of powers conferred on the Commission. These include the prohibition, by mere fiat of the Commission, of statements pertaining to a diversity of matters such as physical security, ethnic and religious harmony, disaffection to the State, personal wellbeing and privacy, and interference with the right of association.