From Sticker to Suspect: What Really Happened?
A 22-year-old man, by the name M.L.M. Rusdi, was arrested by the Terrorist Investigation Department (TID) under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and granted bail after being produced before the Attanagalla Magistrate on April 7th. The arrest took place on March 22, following allegations that he had pasted anti-Israel stickers on a wall inside a shopping mall. While the stickers appeared to be the immediate cause, the police cited suspected links to radical Islamic groups as the underlying justification for invoking the PTA. The court released him on bail under the condition that he reports to the local police station on the last Sunday of every month. [source: Asian Mirror] The case has sparked a wave of attention, drawing comments from human rights activists and legal experts, particularly over the use of counter-terror laws in incidents involving freedom of expression, religious identity, and politically charged messages.
This incident has generated significant discussion across various segments of society. On one hand, concerns have been raised about the implications for civil liberties, especially in cases where expression intersects with political or religious sentiment. On the other hand, there is growing attention on the potential risks of radicalization and the challenges faced by authorities in managing public order. The balance between safeguarding free speech and ensuring national security remains delicate, particularly in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society like Sri Lanka. As the story continues to unfold, it brings to light questions about legal boundaries, proportionality, and the responsibilities of both citizens and the state. In this post, I will take a closer look at the facts surrounding Rusdi’s arrest, its aftermath, and what it may reveal about the larger social and legal landscape.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to incite racial or religious disharmony, nor to bring harm upon any peaceful community. Its sole purpose is to present facts, examine public responses, and encourage informed dialogue on matters of national security and public interest.
The Statement of the Police Media Unit
The incident soon lead to a protest organized by Miflal Moulavi. Protesters stated that the arrested youth, employed as a salesperson at a popular shopping mall in Slave Island, was taken into custody on March 22 after CCTV footage allegedly showed him pasting a “Free Palestine” sticker. They questioned whether such an act of solidarity could be treated as terrorism. Following the protest, Miflal Moulavi was reportedly summoned to the Colombo Crimes Division (CCD), and his residence was allegedly searched. Around the same time, lawyer Hejaaz Hizbullah posted on X (formerly Twitter) alleging that protestors were being intimidated. These events stirred further public debate, raising concerns about freedom of expression and the right to protest. However, the Police Media Division later issued a statement clarifying that the arrest was not solely about the sticker but based on intelligence reports.
The Police Media Division released a statement countering misleading narratives on social media, and the claims made by protestors, clarifying that the young man was not arrested merely for pasting a sticker. Authorities stated that his arrest was based on credible intelligence suggesting links to extremist ideology and hard-line activities. The statement emphasized that the action taken was a security measure, not a response to peaceful protest or political expression. The official press release can be accessed via the link provided. Then on April 10, 2025, Hon. Ananda Wijeypala, Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs, addressed the matter in Parliament. His remarks added further context to the arrest and reinforced the seriousness of the underlying security concerns. The incident, once seen by some as a simple act of protest, has now taken on deeper significance due to emerging evidence.
Statement by Hon. Ananda Wijeypala
Hon. Ananda Wijeypala, Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs, informed Parliament that law enforcement authorities uncovered links between the suspect and his father and Zaharan Hashim—the mastermind behind the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks. He further stated that these connections extend to other individuals involved in the attacks, which claimed the lives of 270 people, including Christians, Buddhists, and foreign tourists, and left over 500 injured—some permanently disabled. The Minister revealed that digital forensic experts found these links after examining electronic devices such as smartphones and computers seized during the investigation. These findings add significant weight to the case and challenge the narrative that the arrest was solely about a sticker. The Police Media Division also stated that the suspect had been exposed to online indoctrination, raising concerns about the broader implications of radical content circulating on the internet.
During the parliamentary session, Minister Mujibur Rahman seized the moment to interrupt Hon. Ananda Wijeypala’s statement, using the platform to accuse the police of unlawful detention and criticize the government for failing to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). His remarks came across as politically charged rather than grounded in the facts presented. Despite the serious nature of the links uncovered between the suspect and known extremists, Mujibur appeared more focused on pushing a political narrative than addressing national security concerns. His intervention seemed less about defending civil liberties and more about scoring points with his base. Observers noted the timing of his outburst, which seemed calculated to draw public sympathy amid growing scrutiny over extremist networks. The incident reflected how some politicians exploit sensitive security issues for political gain, even when clear evidence of deeper threats is emerging.
Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA)
Those who opposed the arrest of the young man quickly tried to divert public attention away from the actual reasons behind the police action—specifically, his alleged extremist links—and toward a political debate about the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). Critics accused the current government of breaking its promise to repeal the law, painting the PTA as an outdated and oppressive tool. While concerns about misuse are valid, it’s equally important to ask whether the PTA is truly as harmful as its opponents claim. In a country that has suffered devastating terror attacks in recent history, can we afford to completely discard such legislation? Or should the focus be on reforming the act to ensure national security without enabling abuse? These are complex questions that require honest and balanced reflection. In the next section, we’ll explore whether the PTA is still relevant—and how it can be responsibly enforced.
Reforming the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) is essential—but we must not throw the baby out with the bath water. Rather than abolish it, we should address the flaws that allow misuse. First, clearly define terms like “terrorism” and “extremism” to prevent arbitrary interpretation. Second, ensure judicial oversight—no detentions without a judge’s warrant. Third, reduce detention without charge to a reasonable, rights-respecting duration. Detainees must have immediate access to legal counsel and communication with family. Finally, establish an independent oversight body to monitor PTA enforcement and handle complaints. These changes can transform the PTA from a blunt instrument into a necessary legal safeguard. In a country that has suffered from terrorism, national security remains crucial—but it must coexist with civil liberties. Reform, not repeal, will ensure both safety and justice in equal measure.
Wrap Up
I rarely have praise for the Sri Lankan police, but in this particular case, credit must be given where it’s due. The swift and strategic action taken by law enforcement and the intelligence services is commendable. The Easter Sunday attacks were a painful reminder of how radical ideologies can unleash chaos and destruction, but they weren’t an isolated incident. The attempted targeting of Israeli tourists in Arugam Bay and growing concerns about radicalization in the Eastern Province show that the threat remains real. Vulnerable communities—particularly youth—are being exploited and indoctrinated under the guise of criticizing the ongoing war between the Israel Military forces and Hamas a recognized terrorist outfit. Against this backdrop, the police acted to prevent another potential tragedy rather than wait for one to unfold.
Despite the backlash, the police held firm. Opportunistic politicians like Mujibur Rahman and misguided activists such as Miflal Moulavi and Hejaaz Hizbullah tried to shift the narrative, using the arrest to push their own agendas. Instead of addressing the real concerns about extremism, they attempted to politicize the incident and deflect attention away from the evidence. Accusations of unlawful detention and cries for PTA repeal, while important topics in the broader human rights discussion, were weaponized in this case to undermine justified preventive action. The authorities didn’t arrest someone for a mere sticker—they acted based on intelligence and forensic findings that indicated possible extremist links. It’s important we understand the gravity of such threats and support security measures taken in good faith. Lives depend on it.
If you found this content helpful, I kindly ask you to leave your feedback in the comments section below. Sharing it on social media would also be greatly appreciated. In order to promote meaningful and respectful dialogue, I request that you use your full name when commenting. Please note that any comments containing profanity, name-calling, or a disrespectful tone will be deleted. Thank you for your understanding and participation.