Sri Lanka’s Online Safety Act No. 9 of 2024: A Digital Shield—or a Muzzle on the Press?
When Sri Lanka’s Parliament hurried the Online Safety Act (OSA) through committee stage and certified it on 1 February 2024, the Government portrayed it as a twenty-first-century firewall against cyber-fraud, child abuse, and “false statements.” Yet to many journalists, lawyers, and rights advocates, the law looks less like a shield and more like a silencer, threatening to roll back two decades of hard-won press freedoms just as the island heads toward national elections. parliament.lk
What the Act Actually Does
- Creates a five-member Online Safety Commission (OSC) appointed by the President with power to investigate complaints, order takedowns, block entire websites, summon individuals, and refer cases for prosecution.2
- Criminalises a wide range of online speech—from “false statements” to vaguely defined “offensive messages”—with penalties of up to LKR 10 million (≈ USD 33,000) and five years in prison.3
- Allows ex-territorial reach: Sri Lankans posting from abroad or foreign journalists writing about Sri Lanka can still be prosecuted if their content is accessible in-country.4
- Imposes “24-hour compliance” on platforms and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to remove content or face steep daily fines, effectively deputising private companies as censors.5
- Forces social-media platforms to register locally and disclose user metadata on demand—without the judicial warrants that would be required under Sri Lanka’s existing Criminal Procedure Code.6
These sweeping powers go far beyond anything found in comparable “online safety” laws in India, Singapore, or the UK, giving Sri Lanka’s executive branch a near-total grip on the digital information sphere. parliament.lk
Six Fault Lines that Endanger Media Freedom
- A Politicised, Unaccountable Watchdog
The OSC is hand-picked by the President and can be removed by him after a closed-door hearing, eliminating the judicial oversight that typically safeguards regulatory bodies. Civil-society groups warn that the Commission could become “a politburo in all but name,” particularly during election campaigns. hrcsl.lkcpalanka.org - Vague, Elastic Offences
Terms such as “false statement,” “misleading content,” or “disturbing public order” lack statutory definitions grounded in international free-speech jurisprudence. Amnesty International concludes that the elasticity of these phrases will have a chilling effect on investigative reporting and satire alike. amnesty.org - Criminal Penalties for Journalism
Section 29 makes any “false statement” that “excites disaffection against the Government” punishable by jail. Reporters Without Borders notes that this resurrects colonial-era sedition clauses under a digital guise and could be used to criminalise live-tweeting a protest or publishing an unverified corruption leak. rsf.org - Takedowns Without Court Orders
Unlike the Defamation Act of 2002 (which provides civil remedies) or Sri Lanka’s long-standing Contempt of Court rules (which require judicial scrutiny), the OSA empowers the OSC to issue removal orders directly to newsrooms and platforms, bypassing the courts and denying journalists real-time injunctive relief. ft.lk - Extraterritorial Reach and Self-Censorship Abroad
Because the Act follows Sri Lankan citizens wherever they post, diaspora journalists in London or Toronto could face extradition requests, making international reporting on Sri Lanka measurably riskier. parliament.lk - A Fast-Track, Closed-Door Birth
Fifty-one petitions challenged the original Bill at the Supreme Court; the Court demanded 31 amendments, yet Parliament adopted only a subset before certification. Both the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and the Human Rights Commission say the truncated process violated constitutional guarantees of public participation. ft.lkhrcsl.lk
Domestic Outcry
- Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL): called for the Act’s withdrawal, saying it “opens the floodgates for executive abuse.” srilankabrief.org
- Free Media Movement & SL Working Journalists’ Association: warned of “pre-publication censorship” just as campaign season begins. sundaytimes.lk
- Dr. Ranga Kalansooriya, former Government Information DG: blasted the Government for “courting Big Tech in private while excluding local newsrooms,” branding the process “regulation by ambush.” newswire.lk
International Alarm Bells
Amnesty International labelled the statute “Sri Lanka’s newest weapon against dissent,” while Human Rights Watch urged immediate repeal. amnesty.org
The U.S. State Department warned the Act could “dampen foreign investment and democratic development.” state.gov
Reporters Without Borders added Sri Lanka to its “countries of concern” list ahead of the 2025 presidential poll, citing the OSC’s sweeping powers. rsf.org
Why the Act Hits Newsrooms Hardest
- Source Protection Jeopardised: Section 22 lets the OSC demand subscriber data and device identifiers (IMEI, IP) without a warrant, undermining confidential sourcing.
- Editorial Speed Becomes Liability: With a 24-hour takedown clock and personal criminal liability for editors, outlets may pre-emptively drop stories whose facts can’t be cross-verified in real time.
- Election-Season Weaponisation: The OSC can designate an entire web domain a “declared online location,” forcing ISPs to block it nationwide—an off-switch no judicial authority can override promptly.
Collectively, these levers invert the traditional hierarchy of checks and balances: instead of courts supervising regulators, regulators now outpace the courts, leaving journalists to fight censorship only after the story is already gone.
Is Reform Still Possible?
Facing the barrage of criticism, the Cabinet in February approved drafting amendments and convened a four-member technical group—including Dr. Kalansooriya—to propose changes. Yet early leaks suggest only cosmetic tweaks targeting platform liability, not the Commission’s core powers. ft.lk
For the OSA to evolve from a digital bludgeon into a bona-fide safety net, three conditions are non-negotiable:
- Judicial Sign-Off for Every Takedown—mirroring the “online harms” model in Canada where a federal court must affirm a removal within 48 hours.
- Tight, Exhaustive Definitions of prohibited content in line with the “Johannesburg Principles” and UN Rabat Plan of Action.
- Multi-Stakeholder Governance that seats journalists, technologists, civil-society voices, and opposition MPs at the same table as security agencies.
Sri Lanka’s vibrant (if often embattled) media ecosystem has withstood civil war, draconian Emergency Regulations, and financial collapse. Whether it survives the Online Safety Act will depend on how forcefully editors, parliamentarians, and the public insist that safety cannot be bought at the cost of silence.
