Speaker of Parliament Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne informed Parliament today (22) that he had received the Supreme Court’s determination on the Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill, which had been challenged under Article 121(1) of the Constitution.
According to the determination, Clauses 3, 4, 6(0) and 6(5) of the Bill are not inconsistent with the Constitution and may be passed by a simple majority in Parliament.
However, the Supreme Court determined that Clauses 6 and 7 are inconsistent with Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(a) of the Constitution and therefore require the special majority prescribed under Article 84(2) to be passed.
The Court further determined that Clause 7, in its present form, is inconsistent with Article 12(1). Accordingly, the proposal relating to the repeal of Article 81 should be withdrawn. If Clause 7 is to proceed, it must be passed with the special majority required under Article 84(2), read together with Article 82(5).
The determination also states that Clause 11(1), which introduces Article 88(1)(f), is not inconsistent with the Constitution and may therefore be passed by a simple majority.
Similarly, Clause 11(2), proposed to be amended at the Committee Stage, is not inconsistent with Articles 10, 12(1), 14(1)(a) and 14(a) of the Constitution and may also be passed by a simple majority.
Significantly, the Supreme Court determined that Clause 17 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 4(c), read together with Article 3 of the Constitution, with Article 13(2) further supporting that conclusion.
Accordingly, for Clause 17 to become law, it must not only be passed by the special majority required under Article 84(2), but must also be approved by the people at a referendum under Article 83.
