Cabinet Speaker and Minister Nalintha Jayatissa has said that the government has no plans to hold a referendum on the Anti-Corruption Amendment Bill.
Following the judgment given by the Supreme Court regarding Section 17 of the Anti-Corruption Amendment Bill, this issue has received renewed attention. The Supreme Court has decided that the said section will require not only a two-thirds majority in Parliament but also a referendum to get public approval.
However, instead of holding a referendum based on that decision, the government has decided to make the necessary changes in the bill and push it through the parliament, said Nalintha Jayatissa.
He mentioned this while speaking at the press conference announcing the weekly cabinet results on September 29. He also said that steps will be taken to pass the remaining parts of the Bill in the Parliament with the required majority based on the Supreme Court’s decision.
In this situation, the debate to be held in the parliament regarding the next steps of the anti-corruption bill has gained importance. The minister said that the debate on the bill will be held in Parliament on October 8.
Government decided to amend Article 17
Important legal issues have been pointed out in the judgment of the Supreme Court, especially in relation to Article 17. The court held that this section conflicts with certain provisions of the Constitution.
Because of this, the court ruled that the passage of Article 17 in its current form would require a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the approval of the public. This judgment was delivered in relation to Articles 83 and 84(2) of the Constitution.
Section 17 deals with matters relating to bail petitions. When asked whether the government is considering whether to delete or amend the section at committee level, Nalinda Jayatissa replied that steps will be taken to delete or amend it.
It seems that the government is trying to resolve the constitutional issue pointed out by the Supreme Court and move the bill through the parliament.
While this bill is intended to further strengthen the legal framework to prevent corruption, there is a need to ensure that every section of it is constitutional. It is part of Sri Lanka’s legal practice that the courts consider whether a bill conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution before it is passed by Parliament.
In this case, the government has to consider the issues pointed out by the court and make changes in the bill.
At the same time, the Supreme Court judgment also clarified that the same majority is not required for all sections of the bill. The court noted that some sections can be passed by a simple majority and some sections by a two-thirds majority.
Parliamentary debate on 8th October
The next important stage regarding the bill is the parliamentary debate to be held on October 8. Considering the issues mentioned in the judgment given by the Supreme Court, the government plans to make changes in some sections of the bill and present it in Parliament.
The Supreme Court held that Sections 3, 4, 6(4), 6(5) and 11 of the Bill were not unconstitutional. Therefore, the court said that these clauses can be passed with a simple majority.
At the same time, the judgment also mentioned that some sections require a two-thirds majority in Parliament. The Court held that there was a conflict with the fundamental rights of the Constitution, particularly in relation to 6(7). It has been decided that a special majority will be required to pass it.
In relation to Article 7, the point is also made in connection with Article 12(1) of the Constitution. If the section continues in its current form, the court said a special majority would be required for its passage.
The Court also commented on the proposal to delete Section 81(e). The next step for the government is to make necessary changes in the bill considering such legal issues.
It is essential that any legislation introduced to strengthen anti-corruption legislation be constitutional and enforceable. At the same time, it is important that every section of the bill is given due consideration in the parliamentary process.
According to Nalinda Jayatissa, the government is currently not in a position to hold a referendum. Instead, changes will be made in the necessary parts of the bill based on the Supreme Court’s decision and steps will be taken to push it through the Parliament.
Thus, the parliamentary debate to be held on October 8 may be an important stage in the future activities of this bill. During that debate, more clarity on the proposed changes to the bill and the parliamentary majority required for their passage may be available.
Based on current information, the government is taking steps to remove or amend Article 17 as a way to resolve the constitutional issue pointed out by the Supreme Court. With this, the government plans to continue to push the bill through the parliamentary process without a referendum.