By The Pulseline News Desk
The Supreme Court on Thursday (3) hit pause on one of the most closely watched legal battles of the year — a challenge to government-proposed amendments to the country’s landmark Anti-Corruption Act. With 15 petitions on the table and arguments still unfolding, the case will resume on today (4), but the stakes are already clear: whether the public gets a direct say, through a referendum, before the bill can become law.
What happened in court
A three-judge bench — Justices Shiran Guneratne, Mahinda Samayawardhena, and Sampath Wijeratne — has heard opening arguments yesterday (3) before adjourning further proceedings until Friday. Lawyers representing the petitioners, who include former minister G.L. Peiris, had wrapped up their initial submissions, telling the court that several provisions in the bill could undercut fundamental rights and encroach on the judiciary’s powers. The petitioners have asked the court to rule that the legislation, as written, cannot be enacted without first being put to a national referendum.
Where the bill came from
The proposed changes target the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023 — itself considered a landmark reform when it passed, designed to bring Sri Lanka’s anti-graft enforcement in line with international standards. The amendment bill was gazetted on July 27 and placed on Parliament’s Order Paper on August 19, setting off a wave of objections from civil society groups even before the government could bring it to a vote.
Among the 15 petitions is one filed by Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL), lodged on August 31 in the public interest. TISL’s petition has argued the amendments would weaken the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) at a moment when public trust in anti-corruption enforcement is already fragile.
Two provisions in particular have drawn fire. One would let CIABOC’s Director General decide, without a magistrate’s prior approval, whether an accomplice in a corruption case should be granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for full disclosure. Another would exempt officials at companies where the government holds between 25 and 50 percent of shares from having to file asset declarations — a carve-out critics say opens a door for exactly the kind of undisclosed conflicts of interest the 2023 Act was built to close.
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its executive director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, has filed a separate petition raising similar constitutional concerns, specifically challenging Clauses 11 and 17 of the bill.
The constitutional question
At the heart of the case is a familiar but consequential question in Sri Lankan law: does this bill touch the “entrenched” provisions of the Constitution — the sovereignty of the people, fundamental rights, and the judicial power of the People.
Petitioners argue the amendments run up against a broad list of constitutional articles, touching everything from the right to information to the independence of the judiciary.
Leave a comment