‘Entrancing entrapment’ and a continuingly worrying CTA

trotting out piecemeal analysis lavishly supported by the aid industry was part of this ugly phenomenon. In both instances this upsurge was accompanied by a demonizing of competing and far more honest narratives.

Comforting but unbelieving justice rhetoric

Continuing worrying concerns The emergence of this obnoxious CTA, which we are now saddled with for our manifest sins, was part of that same dysfunctional process. Drafted in secret, its contents invoked considerable and understandable consternation when leaked to the public. Regrettably, the Bar Association and activist groups such as the Lawyers Collective which would have stormed the scene with pontifications of good governance if such a draft had been spearheaded by the Rajapaksa Presidency were notably silent this time around.

The recent revisions made to the draft CTA will be examined more in detail later in these column spaces. Where the suspect’s right of access to an attorneyat-law is concerned, it appears to be limited to the same unsatisfactory extent that the recent Criminal Procedure (Special Provisions) Code draft amendment stipulates. The manner in which this violates the Rule of Law was discussed last week. All these are worrying concerns.

Fundamentally, the very purpose of an anti-terror law is to provide for exceptional and extraordinary situations where the normal law is not adequate. If however, an environment is brought about where recourse would be to an anti-terror law as a matter of course, this obliterates that crucial distinction. This creates a security state. In effect, Sri Lanka had been a de facto security state for the past many decades due to prolonged civil and ethnic conflict. Now the question is whether that de facto state will not be transformed into a de jure security state if the CTA, in its present obnoxious form, is enacted.

Certainly this is a question that concern us all, regardless of majority or minority status.