News Asia

Pathum Wickramarathne

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

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

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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

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

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:

  1. Judicial Sign-Off for Every Takedown—mirroring the “online harms” model in Canada where a federal court must affirm a removal within 48 hours.
  2. Tight, Exhaustive Definitions of prohibited content in line with the “Johannesburg Principles” and UN Rabat Plan of Action.
  3. 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.

Exit mobile version