Krystle Wijesuriya ✊🇱🇰

I used AI to summarise what I pointed out in the article. Here is why you should worry. Professional journalists in #SriLanka have always done their job. If you kill investigative journalism, prepare to stay in the dark. Be ready to rely on rumour, gossip, hearsay and politicians; and to not have strong, verifiable information on which to base your electoral decisions. Five ways the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill could affect journalists: 1. Court reporting will require prior judicial approval: Section 14(3) makes publishing any matter about court proceedings involving a serious crime under the Act an offence without the court’s prior permission. Journalists could face up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. There is no prescribed application procedure, deadline or appeal mechanism. 2. Journalists’ sources could be exposed: Sections 28, 44 and 45 give police powers to obtain communications data, intercept communications and extract information from phones and computers. There are no specific safeguards for journalist-source communications or confidential sources. Senior police officers can also obtain subscriber identities, call records and phone-location data without prior judicial approval. 3. Journalists could come under surveillance: Reporters communicating with people under investigation could have their conversations intercepted, even if they are not suspects. Encrypted communications may also be accessed. There are no clear limits on how long surveillance can continue, how long intercepted material can be retained or when affected persons must be notified. 4. Investigative reporting and contact with criminal networks could become legally risky: Meeting gang members, visiting their premises or associating with them could be among the factors considered when determining membership of an organised criminal group. While these activities alone do not constitute the offence, reporters could also face exposure under provisions requiring disclosure of information about crimes or prohibiting disclosures that could prejudice investigations. 5. Police powers could threaten journalistic material and independence: Police can, on reasonable suspicion, enter and search premises without a warrant, seize documents and electronic devices, and arrest people. There are no additional protections for journalists or their material. Section 65 could also compel reporters to disclose what they know about a crime, potentially undermining promises of confidentiality to whistleblowers and other sources. Underlying concern: The Bill contains no specific exemption for journalism undertaken in the public interest. Its broad definitions and extensive investigative powers could bring ordinary reporting, particularly investigative and court reporting, within its reach.

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…