By The Pulseline News Desk
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has called on political parties represented in Parliament to allow their MPs to speak and vote according to their conscience when the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution comes before Parliament for debate.
The call comes ahead of the Second Reading of the Bill, scheduled for September 24 and 25, following the Supreme Court’s determination that the proposed amendment does not require approval by the people at a referendum.
In a statement, the BASL stressed that the Supreme Court determination addresses only the constitutional requirements for the passage of the Bill. It said the ruling should not be interpreted as a determination on whether the proposed amendment constitutes sound or appropriate policy, or whether Parliament should ultimately enact it.
The association said the responsibility now lies with Parliament and individual MPs to consider the merits and consequences of the proposed amendment before deciding whether to support it.
The BASL reiterated concerns about what it described as a lack of transparency and adequate consultation in the process of introducing the amendment, while pointing to objections and concerns raised by religious organisations, legal and judicial bodies, international legal organisations, and more than 40 professional associations and trade unions.
Against this backdrop, the BASL said MPs should exercise their constitutional and representative responsibilities independently when the Bill is debated.
“Accordingly, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka calls upon all the political parties in Parliament to allow the Members of Parliament to speak and vote on the 22nd Amendment according to their conscience,” it said.
The association said MPs should adopt a principled position after considering the potential consequences of the amendment, their constitutional obligations and their responsibility to the people of Sri Lanka.
The proposed 22nd Amendment has attracted sustained scrutiny because of its provisions concerning the tenure and retirement of judges of the superior courts. The legislation has also generated wider debate over judicial independence, separation of powers and the manner in which constitutional changes affecting the judiciary should be introduced.
With the Bill now set for its Second Reading, the focus shifts from the Supreme Court’s determination on its constitutional procedure to Parliament’s consideration of the substance and implications of the proposed amendment.
Leave a comment