SC determines certain provisions of draft 22A inconsistent with Constitution

Some provisions of the draft of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution are inconsistent with the Constitution, Speaker of Parliament Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena said today announcing the Supreme Court’s determination to the House.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has arrived at the conclusion that the draft constitutional amendment should be passed by a special majority and a referendum or the clauses in question should be amended.

The draft of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was challenged in the Supreme Court in terms of Article 120(1) (1) of the Constitution.

The Speaker’s announcement is as follows:

I wish to announce to Parliament that I have received the determination of the Supreme Court in respect of the Bill entitled “Twenty Second Amendment to the Constitution” which was challenged in the Supreme Court in terms of Article 121(1) of the Constitution.

On an overall consideration of the provisions of the Bill, the Supreme Court has made the following Determination:

1. The Supreme Court states that the Bill complies with the provisions of the Article 82(1) of the Constitution and requires to be passed by the special majority specified in Article 82(5) of the Constitution.

2. Clause 2 of the Bill contains provisions inconsistent with Article 3 read together with Article 4(b) of the Constitution and as such may be enacted only by the special majority required by Article 82(5) and upon being approved by the People at a Referendum by virtue of Article 83. However, the necessity for a Referendum shall cease if the proposed Articles 41A(6) and 41B(4) in Clause 2 are suitably amended to remove the deeming provision set out therein.

3. Clause 3 of the Bill contains provisions inconsistent with Article 3 read together with Article 4(b) of the Constitution and as such may be enacted only by the special majority required by Article 82(5) and upon being approved by the People at a Referendum by virtue of Article 83. However, the necessity for a Referendum shall cease:

(a) If the proposed Article 44(2), the proviso to Article 44(3), Articles 45(1), 46(1), 47(3)(a), 48(3) and 50 in Clause 3 are suitably amended by deleting the reference to the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister and replacing instead with the President acting in consultation with the Prime Minister;

(b) If the provisions of Article 47(2)(a) are restored in the proposed Article 47(2) in Clause 3. I order that the Determination of the Supreme Court be printed in the Official Report of today’s proceedings of the House.