Chris

Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and how it could harm reporting on corruption. The wider the definition, the more ordinary journalistic work will fall under the rules: Most offences in the Bill apply only when a “serious crime” is committed by a member of an organised criminal group—a “structured group” of three or more people, existing for a period of time and acting together with the aim of committing one or more serious crimes for financial or other material benefit. But the Bill sets a low bar for “structured”. While the group must not be randomly formed for the immediate commission of a crime, it needs no formal roles, continuity of membership or developed structure. A benefit can include payments, bribes, rewards, services or any other advantage. This could include a corruption ring of officials, company managers running (for instance) an illegal sand mining or timber-smuggling network, provided they act together over time with the aim of committing such crimes. The schedule adds offences under the forest, mining, antiquities, gambling and computer crime laws, and two wildlife offences on the import or release of animals. Wildlife trafficking within Sri Lanka is covered only where the offence carries four years or more. For journalists, this matters because the broad definition could decide which stories trigger the Bill’s other provisions. A reporter may not be at risk of being treated as a member of the group. However, once a story involves a “serious crime under this Act,” the provisions that affect journalists start to apply—such as, needing the court’s prior permission to report the case. Similarly, telling anyone something likely to prejudice an investigation, including asking the subject for comment, could be an offence. This does require knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect a police investigation while Section 56(4) provides a defence—that the person did not know and had no reasonable ground to suspect that the disclosure was likely to be prejudicial. Under Section 65, a reporter would have to tell police what you know about the crime, whatever you promised your source. Shielding a source who took part (a whistleblower) could be argued to be “concealing” them. And a reporter’s communications with sources and other material could be reached. #SriLanka sundaytimes.lk/261108/news/o…

It is the duty of professional journalists to report and hold power to account. @anuradisanayake and his current administration have benefited from reporters in #SriLanka doing just that. To now propose a law that could impede their work is beyond inadvisable. I say this because select clauses of the Prevention of Organised Crimes (POC) Bill will cripple professional journalism and stifle investigative reporting. The bill does not specifically refer to journalists or media. But vaguely worded offences and sweeping police powers have implications for routine journalistic work. Significantly, the bill includes no exemption for public-interest reporting. If passed into law, court reporting—a basic and universal component of journalism—would need explicit approval. Under Section 14(3), anyone who prints or publishes any matter about any court proceeding concerning a “serious crime under this Act” without the court’s prior permission faces up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. This is such a big shift for crime and court reporters that it is near impossible to fathom. It is the journalist that requires permission prior to printing or publishing. The bill lays out no procedure for the judiciary. sundaytimes.lk/261108/news/o…

This weekend, @anuradisanayake said in a speech: "These laws will not be used to suppress the public...The National People’s Power does not need legislation to suppress the people. If the public does not want us, we are prepared to face the next election. We are not a political movement that seeks to remain in power through laws and regulations. We are in power through the consent and strength of the people." He was referring to the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTB). See, this is the problem. For his statement to be relevant, the NPP must stay in power forever. We have seen this repeatedly: governments bring in awful laws, insisting they will not abuse them (even when such laws blatantly lend themselves to abuse). And they create a pathway for future administrations to do so. JR Jayewardene spearheaded the Executive Presidency and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, both of which the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, before it assumed power, roundly denounced. Since then, it's been governments that aren't headed by him that have abused these laws. Even the NPP's supporters cannot be so shortsighted as to see this only from the perspective of the administration they blindly back? Let's assume AKD is right, that the NPP will not use legislation "to suppress the people", even when elections draw near and the desire to stay in power becomes overwhelming. If the NPP loses and a "bad" (for want of a better word) administration is elected that would, in fact, use these laws to suppress the people, who do we hold accountable for having introduced them into the lawbook? #SriLanka