By Darshatha Gamage
The Online Safety Act No 9 of 2024 stands as one of the most debated and contentious pieces of legislation in Sri Lanka’s recent history. Gazetted on September 15, 2023, under the directive of the Ministry of Public Security, the Act was introduced with the stated objective of preventing the misuse of online and inauthentic accounts for prohibited purposes.
It also sought to establish mechanisms to detect, prevent, and safeguard against such misuse. Despite these intentions, the law was met with widespread criticism from civil society, technology experts, industry stakeholders, and the international community.
From its inception, the Act has been wrapped in controversy and confusion – almost like a legislative version of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. It began life as an orphan, it seems to be progressing in reverse, and the act is proving almost never to be what it appears to be.
An orphan, later adopted
When the bill was gazetted, there was a question about who drafted this particular legislation. It was very unclear and no one took responsibility for the drafting of the law, almost as if it was an orphan.
Efforts to regulate social media in Sri Lanka date back to December 2015, when an attempt was made to amend the Penal Code. Then, in 2021, under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, cabinet approval was granted to draft a law titled “Protection from False and Misleading Statements Made Through the Internet.” However, the draft remained under wraps until it resurfaced in 2023 as the “Online Safety Bill.”[1]
A Right to Information request filed by activist Anuruddha Bandara revealed the names of individuals involved in the drafting process[2]. Curiously, some of those listed by the Ministry denied their involvement, stating they had resigned from the process. The bill also underwent multiple name changes from “Protection of Online Falsehoods and Manipulation”, echoing Singapore’s 2019 law, to “Online Safety,” mirroring the UK’s 2023 legislation.
Despite the lack of ownership, the former Minister of Public Security Tiran Alles took the bill under his wing and controversially shepherded it through Parliament in 2024. What raised further eyebrows was Minister Alles himself proposing the need for amendments even before the bill was passed which is an unusual move that added to the confusion surrounding the law’s intent and legitimacy.
The legality of how the bill was passed is currently under review by the Supreme Court. Further, the previous government did not appoint the proposed Online Safety Commission despite the act being in force.
On May 26, 2025, the Cabinet of Ministers under President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s new National People’s Power (NPP) government decided to appoint a committee to work towards amending the act. It now seems that the act which almost seemed abandoned has been adopted by the NPP government.
Progressing in Reverse
The law unsurprising has been progressing in reverse. From the inception itself the law was opposed by many stakeholders including the political opposition at the time, civil society, tech experts, tech corporates as well as the international community.
The Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa not only opposed the law but vowed to repeal it if he was to come into power[3]. President Anura Kumara Dissanayaka, then as an opposition member, stated in parliament that the “main objective of the act is to restrict the flow of information shared through social media[4].”
The current Prime Minister, Dr Harini Amarasuriya, called law a “highly flawed piece of legislature” in her previous capacity as an opposition member of parliament. She also went on to say, “It is very clear that the one and only intention of this Government is to suppress dissent” in parliament on the 24th of January 2024 when the bill was debated[5].
Current NPP member of parliament Dr Kaushalya Ariyarathna in a discussion with a popular YouTube channel stated that an NPP government will repeal the Online Safety Act[6]. However, both parties who were in the opposition at the time, Samagi Jana Balawegaya and the National Peoples’ Power, reversed their promise as their “repeal” of the act was changed to “amend” in the respective election manifestos.
Following consolidation of power, the National Peoples’ Power has been relatively silent on its action on the online safety act and no known process has been initiated to repeal or amend the law despite the previous claims. It does seem as if the current government has taken over custody of the act from Tiran Alles.
Ironically, opposition MP Ravi Karunanayake who represents the Ranil Wickramasinghe camp which introduced the bill has made a private member motion to repeal the act. While legitimate questions remain about the true motivations behind the motion and why the very camp that introduced the bill now seeks its repeal, the move also places the NPP government under increased scrutiny.
The progress of the act has been in reverse where parties that opposed it are seemingly silently in preference to the law while the parties that introduced it are attempting to repeal it.
Not what appears to be
Perhaps the clearest truth about the Online Safety Act is that it is not what it claims to be. While the previous government, particularly former Minister Tiran Alles, insisted that the law was introduced to protect women and children online, there is little evidence to support this.
Over a year since its enactment, no significant cases have been filed under the Act in defense of women or children. Instead, cases filed under its provisions have largely aimed at shielding political interests, protecting online money-lending businesses, and targeting media organizations. In essence, the law prioritizes content moderation and control over genuine online safety.
Moreover, it is evident that the act fails to achieve many of its intended objectives. It has been rejected by the global tech industry, which shows little intention of complying with it. As a result, the act is poorly positioned to address the real challenges users face in online spaces.
Compounding the issue, the global political landscape is shifting, and tech oligarchs have only tightened their influence over it. The flawed nature of the law, coupled with the impracticality of enforcing a policy created without meaningful consultation, leaves ample room for tech oligarchs to manipulate the system to their advantage.
The proposed Online Safety Commission, if established, would likely face an overwhelming and impractical mandate. Its members would be tasked with navigating a legal framework in a large tech-driven black hole riddled with ambiguities and controversies.
From its murky origins to its convoluted evolution and troubling implementation, the Online Safety Act has been a peculiar and problematic law. It is increasingly clear that while the digital space in Sri Lanka does indeed face pressing challenges, the current form of this legislation is not equipped to resolve them, at least not without infringing on fundamental rights.
Civil society groups and digital rights experts continue to call for a transparent, inclusive process to assess the complexities of online safety. Such a process must involve meaningful consultation with all relevant stakeholders and aim to craft solutions that balance public safety with democratic freedoms while holding tech corporations, service providers, and perpetrators accountable.
As the story of the Online Safety Act unfolds, one thing remains certain: real online safety cannot be achieved through ambiguous laws and political posturing. It must be built on clarity, accountability, and above all, the trust of the people.
The author can be reached at darshathagamage@gmail.com.
Factum is an Asia-Pacific focused think tank on International Relations, Tech Cooperation, Strategic Communications, and Climate Outreach accessible via www.factum.lk.
The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the organization’s.
[1] https://www.cabinetoffice.gov.lk/cab/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=49&lang=en&dID=11041
[2] https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15RwzvzyhS/
[3] https://youtu.be/OzMqkNeCkmc?si=gzPWI9E4a7Z8HUJb
[4] https://www.parliament.lk/uploads/documents/hansard/1710309151033998.pdf
[5] https://www.parliament.lk/uploads/documents/hansard/1710740618097288.pdf
