“What drives me to pursue this field is my conviction that if someone’s human rights are breached through torture or other means, they deserve justice through the law, and I believe I can help make that happen.”
In the latest edition of our Press Freedom Advocates Series which highlights the stories of lawyers defending journalists worldwide we meet Manushika Cooray, a founding partner of the Human Rights Law Chambers in Sri Lanka. Having stood with poets, comedians, and journalists in courtrooms, Manushika Cooray tells us how laws from hate speech provisions to counterterrorism measures are being used to silence dissent. She takes us through the ways she has seen this suppression enacted and why the fight to resist it matters so deeply to her.
Thank you very much for speaking with us, Manushika. To begin, could you share why freedom of expression is so important to you personally and in your work?
Every human right is vital, but freedom of expression is central because it underpins so many others from freedom of thought, conscience and religion to peaceful assembly they are all interconnected.
Most of us have the desire to share, showcase, and discuss our views and, when we cannot, we experience a sense of pressure. Perhaps that is why social media has become so widespread. For me, freedom of expression is important because, just as everyone else, I need the space to express myself openly.
Since childhood, it has been my dream to become a lawyer. Driven by the many injustices I witnessed around me, I gained a passion for justice and advocacy. During my law studies at the University of Colombo, I developed a strong interest in the intersection of international humanitarian law and human rights. That interest has guided my career ever since, from my early work at the Centre for Society and Religion to my current role as a human rights lawyer and consultant.
As a lawyer, I have defended poets, comedians, journalists, and human rights defenders whose right to free expression was violated. I’ve seen them arrested, threatened, and humiliated – hardships no one should face for voicing an opinion. While it is important to recognise that freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions, these should only ever be those prescribed by law and genuinely necessary.
What drives me is my conviction that if someone’s human rights are breached through torture or other means, they deserve justice through the law, and I believe I can help make that happen. My aim has always been to represent those who lack the means to fight against injustice themselves and help them claim their rights.
We are witnessing a widespread erosion of democratic rights and press freedom. Could you share your thoughts on the landscape in Sri Lanka at the moment?
The Sri Lankan Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but it also allows certain restrictions. These are intended to protect racial and religious harmony, parliamentary privilege, or to address issues such as contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to commit an offence.
However, in practice, these restrictions are often broadly interpreted and used to suppress dissent, particularly when it involves criticising the government or influential institutions. Beyond such restrictions, other legislation is also used to infringe upon freedom of expression.
ICCPR Act: Using hate speech laws to silence legitimate speech
For instance, there is a law called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act No. 56 of 2007 (ICCPR Act), which incorporated aspects of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (a treaty Sri Lanka ratified) into domestic law.
While intended to uphold human rights, it has been widely misused to suppress freedom of expression, particularly against speech considered offensive to Buddhism, leading to multiple arrests and other actions against journalists, activists and comedians.
Specifically, section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act, has been used to this effect. This notes that “no person shall propagate war or advocate national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and anyone who attempts or threatens to commit such an offence could be subject to a prison sentence of up to 10 years.
Under the ICCPR Act, bail is also harder to obtain, as only the High Court may grant it in “exceptional circumstances,” not a local Magistrate’s Court. In practice, this leads to longer periods in detention, higher legal costs, limiting access to justice.
I have seen many examples of this. For instance, journalist and writer Shakthika Sathkumara was arrested and detained under the ICCPR Act after posting a short story, ‘Ardha’, on Facebook. An association of Buddhist monks reported the matter to police, alleging that the story insulted and defamed their religion and community.
He was eventually granted bail by the High Court, after spending just over 4 months in pre-trial detention. Sathkumara has insisted that the publication of “Ardha” was not meant to insult Buddhism or any religious community. In 2021 the charges were eventually dropped.
In another case, a stand-up comedian was arrested under the Act, leading not only to her imprisonment but also causing significant damage to her reputation and personal distress. She was later granted bail by the Colombo High Court and released by the Magistrate’s Court.
Online Safety Act: Censorship and Concentration of Power
The Online Safety Act No. 9 of 2024 is one of the most controversial laws passed recently. This law aimed to establish the Online Safety commission to regulate online content and activity to protect against “prohibited statements” and “inauthentic online accounts”, yet no commission has been established to date.
The Act requires five members of the commission to be nominated and appointed by the President under the approval of the Constitutional Council, but since no commission has been set up, the law creates uncertainty and leaves too much power in the hands of a single authority.
The Act’s vague definitions and powers to regulate online accounts also create broad risks of censorship and restriction of free expression.
Counterterrorism Laws
‘Counterterrorism’ laws are also frequently misused. Poet and teacher Ahnaf Jazeem was arrested in May 2020 under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1979 (PTA). Initially held on suspicion of promoting “extremist” ideologies through his Tamil-language poetry anthology, Navarasam, Jazeem, spent over a year in custody before he was granted bail. The Puttalam High Court acquitted Jazeem of all charges more than three and a half years after his arrest.
It also seems to me that some police agencies, including the Counter-Terrorism and Investigation Division (CTID), have increasingly conducted investigations in ways that intend to chill speech. For instance, Tamil journalist, Kanapathipillai Kumanan, underwent over six hours of interrogation by the CTID. Concerningly, the questioning focused on his journalism and photography work, social media activities, financial dealings, phone records, and overseas visits.
In another case a young person was arrested and detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) for pasting a sticker that allegedly insulted Israel. Fortunately, after being produced before the Attanagalla Magistrate’s Court on 7th April 2025, the person was released.
The Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA) is a proposed anti-terrorism law put forward by the Sri Lankan government to replace the widely criticised PTA. Yet, critics say the PSTA defines terrorism in terms that are too broad and unclear, which could give authorities the power to treat many forms of expression including criticism of the government, reporting on sensitive topics, and political activism as terrorism. Section 15, which criminalises the failure to report information related to terrorism, could compel individuals including journalists, lawyers, and doctors to act as informants. This threatens professional confidentiality and ethical standards, and may deter public participation and investigative journalism.
The Right to Information
I have also handled a high number of Right to Information (RTI) applications. This is essential for journalists to access accurate and timely material for their reporting. Without it, the media cannot carry out their role of informing the public.
In Sri Lanka, however, delays and failures by Information Officers and Designated Officials to provide responses within the time limits set by law pose a major challenge.
Although the Right to Information Commission is required to issue decisions on appeals within 30 days, in some cases rulings have been delayed for up to three years. Such delays undermine the purpose of the law, as the need for information often expires over time.
Hearing you describe these experiences really brings home the personal cost of repression. Is there one case you’d feel comfortable sharing that was especially meaningful for you, or that speaks to the wider realities of defending free expression in Sri Lanka?
One case that highlights the broader challenges to freedom of expression in Sri Lanka, and in which I was involved, is Tharindu Jayavadhana v. Director, Criminal Investigation Department and Others (Case No. CA (PHC) APN: 83/23).
In 2023, a case was filed against a Sri Lankan stand-up comedian over a performance alleged to have defamed the Lord Buddha. Following the arrest, in May of that year, a group of journalists, lawyers, lecturers, and civil society activists including my client, investigative journalist Tharindu Jayawardhana held a press conference on the violation of the comedian’s right to freedom of expression.
During the press conference, Jayawardhana commented on the ICCPR Act and noted that in this case the police had not acted upon the Human Rights Commission’s 2019 recommendations . The Commission had made clear that Sri Lanka’s hate speech law should apply only to speech that directly incites hostility, discrimination or violence, not to peaceful expression.
On 07th June 2023, during a hearing at the Fort Magistrate Court, a lawyer, alleged that the group, including Jayawardhana, had insulted the court at a press conference. As a result of his name being mentioned that day, the Magistrate gave the director of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) an order to investigate Jayawardhana.
Dissatisfied with this order, as the instructing attorney, I filed a revision application in the Colombo High Court on behalf of my client, asking the court to review and change the lower court’s order.
The High Court Judge dismissed the revision application, without issuing notices to the Respondents, reasoning, that we had not shown any exceptional circumstances that would justify the High Court stepping in at that stage.
Aggrieved by this decision we filed another revision application before the Court of Appeal. This time we were successful. The Court of Appeal overturned the earlier rulings of both the High Court and the Magistrate’s Court, deciding the case in favour of Jayawardhana.
The stand-up comedian was eventually released by the Magistrate’s Court. If the Court of Appeal had not made this order, my client could have been arrested simply for his words, a grave threat to free expression. Given the seriousness of the situation, we pursued the revisions in the court of law, knowing his right to speak freely was under imminent threat.
The President’s Counsel, Saliya Peiris, Mr. Thanuka Nandasiri, Mr. Suren D. Perera, and Mr. Manujaya De Silva worked as counsel in this case.
Manushika Cooray is a human rights lawyer and a founding partner of the Human Rights Law Chambers in Sri Lanka, where she has taken on cases defending freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the rights of refugees, as well as fighting against torture and sexual violence against women. Her courage and innovation in the field have been recognised with REDRESS’s Innovative Lawyers Award. In June 2024, Cooray attended the 56th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. While attending the session, she was also a speaker at the side event, ‘Weaponising the law: Shutting Down Civic Space Perspectives from Asia’. Cooray also participated at Media Defence’s Freedom of Expression Litigation Surgery for Women Lawyers in South and Southeast Asia held in September 2024 in Nepal, as well as our peer to peer mentorship programme.
