The Supreme Court today concluded oral submissions on petitions challenging the government’s 20th Amendment to the Constitution Bill, announcing that it would refer the matter to the President and the Speaker of Parliament.
The apex court announced that the confidential decision of the Court regarding the constitutionality of the Bill will be conveyed to the President and the Speaker of Parliament in due course.
The court ordered the parties to file their written submissions on the petition at 3.00 pm tomorrow. Thereafter, steps will be taken to refer the secret decision of the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the bill to the President and the Speaker of Parliament, Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya stated in open court.
The petitions were heard for four days before a five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, justices Buwaneka Aluvihare, Sisira de Abrew, Priyantha Jayawardena and Vijith Malalgoda.
At the commencement of the hearing today, Attorney General Dappula de Livera further stated that almost all the provisions contained in the 20th Amendment to the Constitution are in accordance with the Constitution.
The Attorney General stated that the President is bound to ensure free and fair elections in accordance with the Constitution. He said that the proposed 20th Amendment Bill has expanded that responsibility and provided the Elections Commission with a strong legal basis for free and fair elections.
The Attorney General pointed out that the President’s immunity which was lost under the 19th Amendment Act has been proposed to be reinstated in the current 20th Amendment to the Constitution, adding that this will enable the President to exercise his executive powers vested in him by the Constitution without any hindrance.
The petitioners had alleged that the President’s official duties could not be challenged through the restoration of the President’s immunity and that the powers of the judiciary would be curtailed.
Rejecting those arguments, the Attorney General stated that restoring immunity to the President would not reduce the power of the judiciary in any way.
The Attorney General pointed out that the petitioner’s contention that the re-establishment of immunity would deprive the President of the opportunity to scrutinize his official duties was unacceptable as the President is accountable to Parliament in accordance with the Constitution.
The 20th Amendment Bill empowered the President to dissolve Parliament one year after the date of its election.
However, the Attorney General stated that the proposed amendments to be introduced by the Government during the Committee Stages of Parliament have added a new amendment stating that the President can dissolve Parliament after two and a half years from the date of the election.
The Attorney General pointed out that this would strengthen the sovereignty of the people so that the President would have the opportunity to dissolve Parliament for the benefit of the people and re-elect new representatives when the Parliament is not functioning properly.
The petitioners had stated that the proposed 20th Amendment Bill empowers the President to refer a bill that is rejected by Parliament for a referendum, thereby violating the sovereignty of the people.
However, the Attorney General argued that in the event of a Parliament rejecting a bill on the basis of a power struggle, the 20th Amendment Bill empowers the President to present the rejected bill directly to the public through a referendum in the public interest and that this would not infringe on the sovereignty of the people.
The petitions allege that the 20th Amendment Bill proposes to abolish the Constitutional Council established under the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, violating the sovereignty of the people.
The Attorney General pointed out that the Constitutional Council is only a mechanism for making appointments.
The Attorney General stated that the President alone has the exclusive power to make appointments and that the President has the power to reject any recommendation made by the Constitutional Council and not to act accordingly.
He pointed out that the 20th Amendment Bill would replace the Constitutional Council with a Parliamentary Council and that there was no serious difference between that body and the Constitutional Council established by the 19th Amendment.
The petitions allege that the removal of the clause, which barred persons with dual citizenship from contesting parliamentary and presidential elections, violates the sovereignty of the people.
The Attorney General pointed out that dual citizenship is granted to a person by the Minister in charge of the subject under the Citizenship Act and stated that the Minister in charge of the subject is empowered under that Act to revoke the citizenship so granted at any time.
The Attorney General pointed out that under the Citizenship Act, dual citizenship is granted to a person only for the benefit of the country and even if a person with such dual citizenship is elected to Parliament, he will lose his seat when the Minister in charge of the subject loses his citizenship.
The Attorney General pointed out that dual citizens are also Sri Lankan citizens and it is not possible to treat them differently.
The petitioners had alleged that the provisions made in the 20th Amendment Bill, which provided for the introduction of emergency bills, were also unconstitutional.
The Attorney General stated that the 20th Amendment Bill provides for the introduction of “Emergency Bills” in the public interest only in the event of an emergency such as a disaster or an epidemic.
The Attorney General also noted that amendments to the Constitution would not be made under this emergency procedure.
The Attorney General said this is not the first time that the methodology for introducing emergency bills has been introduced in the Constitution of the country and pointed out that before the 19th Amendment to the Constitution came into force, this emergency procedure was introduced and a number of Acts had been passed under it.
The Attorney General stated that the fears raised by the petitioners that the public would be deprived of the opportunity to challenge the Emergency Bills when they are introduced in the courts are totally unacceptable. He recalled that in the past, when such emergency bills were introduced, many people had come before the courts and challenged them.
The petitioners had alleged that the 20th Amendment Bill empowers the Election Commission to issue guidelines to private media institutions in the country during election periods, which was unconstitutional.
Commenting on this the Attorney General pointed out that it has been proposed to include these provisions in the Constitution to ensure free and fair elections.
The Attorney General further stated that several new provisions have been introduced in the 20th Amendment Bill to introduce the quality of auditing in Sri Lanka and internationally accepted standards. He stated that these amendments would not be unconstitutional.
The Attorney General noted that there was no need to refer to a referendum to approve any of the clauses in the Bill as a whole.
Finally, Attorney General Dappula de Livera stressed in court that the Bill could easily be passed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament without a referendum.
Courtesy: Colombo Page
