The dilemma of a definition: Terrorism without terror?

Following its electoral promise to abolish the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), the government has appointed a committee led by Rienzi Arsekularatne, Senior President's Counsel, to draft a new law to replace it.

- BY (DR) JAYAMPATHY WICKRAMARATNE, PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL

Mr Arsekularatne has decades of experience in criminal justice, having worked as both a prosecutor and defence counsel. He represented many activists unfairly accused of crimes during the Aragalaya. As a legal advisor to the Catholic Church, he has a good understanding of the rights of victims and their families. He will thus be able to consider issues from the perspectives of the State, criminal justice, human rights, suspects, accused, activists, and victims.

The PTA does not create an offence of “terrorism”; instead, it provides for special provisions regarding offences, most of which are already covered by law. In 2018, the Yahapalanaya government proposed a Counter-Terrorism Act (CTA) that sought to define terrorism. Certain acts, not necessarily involving the use of violence, let alone terror, would amount to terrorism. When the Bill was taken up for discussion by the Sectoral Committee on Defence, the writer, then a Member of Parliament of the ruling coalition, argued that many acts committed during the famous Hartal of 1953 would have come within the proposed offence and that Opposition politicians such as S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, N.M. Perera, Philip Gunawardena and Colvin R. De Silva would have gone to jail as “terrorists”. The Bill was withdrawn in the face of local as well as international concern.

One can say the same of acts committed during the Aragalaya on Galle Face. Even if some acts were not entirely peaceful, they were by no means acts of terrorism. Events involving violence in the aftermath of attacks on protesters, including the unfortunate killing of a Member of Parliament and the torching of houses of politicians, were dealt with under ordinary law, not under the PTA.