Repeal PTA and adopt balanced approach to security and liberty

REPEAL versus replace the case for repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act No. 48 of 1979 (PTA) is overwhelming. Some of the causes are its negative impact on human rights, constitutional governance and legal norms.

- By Mass L. Usuf

Not to mention the bad reputation locally and internationally since it had been used as a tool of suppression than national security. To replace the PTA with a new Act will be perpetuating the same injustices — repackaging old wine in a new bottle. This outdated and oppressive Act must be completely dismantled without any compromise.

This article explains the rationale for repealing the PTA and integrating anti-terror provisions, balancing national security and civil liberties, into the existing legal framework. Central to this reform is robust accountability mechanisms as an indispensable requirement.

Some of the compelling reasons for repealing the PTA are:

1. Government acknowledgement:

The need to reform and adopt a suitable legal framework, due to the deficiencies, ineffectiveness and oppressive nature of the PTA.

2. Violation of human rights:

Provisions in the Act granting powers for arbitrary detention without formal charges.

3. Due process:

Lack of due process by extending detentions without judicial oversight violates the right to a fair trial and challenges judicial authority.

4. Torture and coercion:

Cruel and inhuman treatment of individuals to extract confessions in violation of constitutional and international prohibitions.

5. Targeting of minorities:

The concern on ethnic discrimination since PTA has often been applied primarily against Tamil and Muslim communities.

6. Suppression of free speech:

Journalists, activists, civil society organisations and dissenters have been targeted using the PTA thereby, threatening freedom of expression.

7. Infringement of constitutional rights:

The right to peaceful assembly, liberty, equal treatment under the law etc. are all undermined by the PTA.

8. Lack of judicial review: