On March 22, the Sri Lanka Police’s Counter Terrorism Investigation Division (CTID) arrested 22-year-old Mohamad Liyaudeen Mohamed Rusdi, a salesperson employed at a popular shopping mall in Slave Island. His arrest was made under the contentious Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), with the initial trigger reportedly being the act of pasting an anti-Israel sticker on a trash bin at his workplace. CCTV footage was reviewed to identify Rusdi, leading to his swift apprehension.
While the visible offence appeared minor, police said he was taken into custody due to alleged extremist views. Authorities further claimed he was suspected of involvement in activities deemed threatening to Israeli nationals in Sri Lanka and of actions potentially inciting communal discord. In a statement, the law enforcement agency insisted the arrest was not based solely on the content of the sticker, but because the suspect was identified as someone who could pose a threat under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
However, following an investigation, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) has now concluded that the CTID violated Mohamad Rusdi’s fundamental rights by arresting him under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and subjecting him to detention.
During the HRCSL inquiry, the CTID had been requested to submit a report on the arrest. In the report submitted as per the directive, the CTID had claimed he was arrested based on the information gathered around the pasting of the sticker, the presence of a decorative sword at Rusdi’s residence and his alleged “extremist views”.
No intent to violate law
During the inquiry, the CTID claimed that there was no deliberate intent to violate the law in Rusdi’s case. Officials argued that their actions were taken in a climate of heightened scrutiny, particularly in the wake of severe public criticism for failing to act on intelligence ahead of the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks. They said that, given prior intelligence reports warning of possible attacks on tourists, the division felt compelled to act decisively.
However, the CTID ultimately conceded that the slogan on the sticker pasted by Rusdi did not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). In fact, they admitted that had the sticker been displayed openly in front of the Israeli Embassy, it may not have warranted an arrest. It was, according to them, the covert manner in which it was pasted in a public place combined with Rusdi subsequently deleting content from his social media that triggered deeper suspicion and further investigation.
The CTID also informed the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) that during interrogation, Rusdi’s views on Israel raised concerns that he could potentially commit an offence in the future. Based on their assessment of his online activity, they had concluded he had been radicalised and, therefore, posed a perceived threat to national security. The CTID officials during in inquiry admitted the detention order was later suspended as they had not found any further evidence linking Rusdi to an offence under the PTA.
No legal basis for arrest
Meanwhile, the counsel representing Rusdi argued during the inquiry that there was no legal basis for his arrest and no reasonable grounds for his detention under the PTA. He said that Rusdi had been compelled to sign a statement written in Sinhala, without being given adequate time to review its contents.
Rusdi, for his part, admitted to pasting the sticker in solidarity with Palestine but denied doing so covertly, as alleged. He told the HRCSL that he was fully aware of the CCTV cameras in the area and did not attempt to conceal his actions. Rusdi also claimed he was struck in the face by some interrogating officers but said he was unable to recall who these officers were.
Views not uncommon
Following its inquiry, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) concluded that the text on the stickers pasted by Rusdi did not amount to an offence under Section 3(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act or under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
The Commission further observed that Rusdi’s views, while potentially offensive to some, were not uncommon and fell within the bounds of constitutionally protected expression. It emphasised that expressing such views does not constitute a criminal offence and is safeguarded under Sri Lanka’s Constitution. The HRCSL also highlighted the patent unreasonableness of Rusdi’s arrest in response to the impugned expression.
“The Commission finds it difficult to accept that depriving a person of their liberty was a reasonable response to an expression featuring an expletive term against a state and a call to end a particular policy allegedly enforced by the State,” it said in its findings. The HRCSL concluded that the CTID had violated Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression.
In addition, the Commission declared Rusdi’s arrest unlawful, citing the lack of sufficient and reasonable evidence against him at the time of arrest. The HRCSL noted that it was evident investigators did not consider the slogan itself to constitute an offence, but rather used it as an indicator of Rusdi’s presumed state of mind. It concluded that he had been arrested without reasonable suspicion linking him to any unlawful activity.
The HRCSL also found that the CTID had acted arbitrarily in seeking a detention order against the youth, deeming it both unreasonable and unnecessary given the evident lack of supporting evidence in the case. The Commission also held that the police had violated Rusdi’s rights to equality, freedom from discrimination, the right to engage in a lawful occupation, his freedom of movement and several others.
HRCSL recommendations
Accordingly, the Commission has directed the Ministry of Public Security to compensate Rusdi with Rs. 200,000 to address the prejudice he suffered regarding his freedom to engage in lawful employment. The HRCSL also issued a stern reprimand to the CTID and the police on basic principles of lawful enforcement.
The Commission recommended that the CTID establish a formal procedure to consult the Director of Legal Services of the Sri Lanka Police and the Attorney General’s Department before arresting any suspect for expressions under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). It further called on the CTID to implement a standard practice of producing suspects before a magistrate within 72 hours of arrest.
The HRCSL instructed the CTID director to distribute copies of the Commission’s findings and recommendations to all CTID officers, requiring them to “read and fully comprehend” the content. The Commission also recommended that the CTID ensure officers provide an official receipt of arrest to the suspect’s next of kin and strictly prohibit meeting next of kin outside official police premises.
Another key recommendation was to reissue the Inspector General of Police’s (IGP) instructions on media communications, emphasizing that no prejudicial information about victims should be disclosed to the press. All officers are also to be given clear written instructions to refrain from racial profiling and to seek expert opinions when assessing a suspect’s state of mind, rather than making assumptions independently.
This case underscores the urgent need for law enforcement agencies in Sri Lanka to uphold constitutional rights and adhere strictly to legal procedures, especially under draconian laws like the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Human Rights Commission’s findings serve as a crucial reminder that safeguarding freedom of expression, equality, and due process is paramount even in matters involving national security.
The HRCSL’s recommendations, if implemented earnestly, could restore public confidence in the justice system and ensure that the rights of all citizens, regardless of their views or backgrounds, are protected. Mohamad Rusdi’s ordeal should be a catalyst for meaningful reform, highlighting that the rule of law must prevail over arbitrary and unfounded arrests.
