States Commission on International Religious Freedom in its report on Religious Freedom Conditions in Sri Lanka (2021) cited the case of Indika Rathnayake as an example of the ‘enforcement’ of blasphemy Laws in Sri Lanka. Rathnayake was arrested for allegedly spreading fictitious concepts about Buddhism and Buddha (Udin, n.d.). Therefore, Dr. Gunatilleke contends that in the misapplication of Section 3 of the ICCPR Act, individuals in each of these cases were not accused of inciting discrimination, hostility, or violence against the Buddhist community. Instead, they were charged with directly offending Buddhism or a revered Buddhist symbol. ANTI-MINORITY SENTIMENTS AND THE SUPPRESSION OF FOE This section addresses the utilisation of the laws (mainly the PTA) to prosecute members of ethnic or religious minorities in Sri Lanka, thereby impinging on their freedom of expression. While the primary objective of the PTA is to address legitimate concerns regarding terrorism, its broad provisions have led to numerous instances of violations of freedom with Sri Lankan authorities standing accused of wielding extensive powers to conduct searches, make arrests, and detain individuals under the PTA. Human Rights Watch criticised the new regulations introduced to the PTA in March and April of 2021 for including vague language to make it easier for the Government to target religious communities that have not engaged in terrorism (Sri Lanka: ‘Religious Disharmony’ Order Threatens Minorities, 2021). Following the Easter Sunday Attacks investigations, the PTA has faced criticism for its role in the indefinite detention of Muslims and Tamils. Notable cases include Ahnaf Jazeem (Human Rights Watch, 2021), Murugupillai Kokulathasan (2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Sri Lanka, n.d.), and Fazl Muhammed Nizar (2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Sri Lanka, n.d.). Prosecutions targeting minority groups continue as authorities utilise the PTA, ICCPR Act, and Penal Code to apprehend and punish Government critics, while also curbing online freedom of expression. The cases of Murugupillai Kokulathasan and Fazl Muhammed Nizar show how the PTA can be wielded to infringe upon freedom of expression in online spaces. Murugupillai Kokulathasan, a Tamil journalist and photographer associated with the Batticaloa Press Club, was arrested by the Terrorism Investigation Department in November 2020. He faced accusations of sharing images of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam on Facebook during the Maaveerar Naal commemoration. After spending over 470 days in detention under the PTA, he was granted bail only in March 2022 (Tamil Journalist Released on Bail Following Over 470 Days in Detention, 2022). Similarly, Fazl Muhammed Nizar, a Muslim businessman and writer, was apprehended by the CID in January 2020 under the PTA due to a Facebook post criticising the Government’s heavy-handed governance methods. In Court, the CID asserted that the individual had shared multiple statements on his Facebook profile that were considered derogatory towards various groups, including monks, posing a threat to the cohesion of inter-ethnic harmony and coexistence (Media Freedom Rights Monitoring Report, 2021). Obtaining a 90-day detention order under the PTA in January 2020, the police detained Nizar, and as of December 2020, he remained in detention—the last known update to his case (2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Sri Lanka, n.d.). - 19 -