By The Pulseline News Desk
The Supreme Court has cleared most provisions of the proposed Anti-Corruption Act (Amendment) Bill for passage through Parliament but has ruled that Clause 17 would require both a special majority and approval at a referendum before it can become law.
Reading the Court’s determination in Parliament today, Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne said the Court had found Clauses 3, 4, 6(4) and 6(5) of the Bill not inconsistent with the Constitution, allowing them to be passed by a simple majority.
The determination, however, identifies several provisions requiring changes or a higher parliamentary threshold, with Clause 17 facing the most significant constitutional hurdle.
Clause 6(7) requires constitutional threshold
The Court determined that Clause 6(7) is inconsistent with Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Speaker said the provision may nevertheless be validly passed with either a simple or special majority as provided for under Article 84(2) of the Constitution.
The determination therefore leaves Parliament with a constitutional route to proceed with the provision, subject to the voting threshold applicable under Article 84(2).
Court calls for withdrawal of Clause 7 provision
The Court has also found Clause 7 of the Bill inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
The provision seeks to repeal Section 81(e), but the Supreme Court has held that the proposed repeal should be withdrawn.
According to the determination read by the Speaker, if Clause 7 is retained in its present form, it may be validly passed only with a special majority in Parliament.
This means the Government would have to either withdraw the proposed repeal or secure the higher constitutional majority required for the provision to proceed in its current form.
Clauses 11 provisions cleared
The Supreme Court found Clause 11(1), together with the processes contained in it, not inconsistent with the Constitution.
The provision can therefore be passed by a simple majority in Parliament.
Similarly, Clause 11(2), which is proposed to be amended at the Committee Stage, was found not inconsistent with the Constitution and can also be passed with a simple majority.
The Court’s determination therefore allows the Government to proceed with these provisions without requiring either a special majority or a referendum.
Clause 17 faces referendum requirement
The most consequential finding concerns Clause 17.
The Supreme Court has determined that Clause 17 is inconsistent with the Constitution and could become law only if it is passed by a special majority in Parliament and approved by the People at a referendum.
The determination places the provision under the highest constitutional threshold applicable to ordinary legislation.
For the Government, this means Clause 17 cannot be enacted solely through parliamentary approval. Any attempt to retain the clause in its present form would require both the constitutionally prescribed special majority and subsequent approval at a national referendum.
Parliament now faces key decisions
The Supreme Court’s determination does not reject the proposed Anti-Corruption Act (Amendment) Bill as a whole. Instead, it distinguishes between provisions that can proceed with a simple majority, those requiring a special majority and provisions that require both parliamentary approval and a referendum.
The determination provides Parliament with a clear constitutional roadmap for considering the Bill.
Clauses 3, 4, 6(4), 6(5), 11(1) and the proposed Committee Stage amendment to Clause 11(2) can proceed with a simple majority.
Clause 6(7) attracts the requirements under Article 84(2), while Clause 7 would require a special majority if retained in its present form, with the Court recommending that the proposed repeal of Section 81(e) be withdrawn.
Clause 17, meanwhile, cannot become law without both a special majority in Parliament and approval by the People at a referendum.
The determination now places the focus on the Government’s next legislative steps, particularly whether it will amend or withdraw the provisions flagged by the Supreme Court before the Bill is taken forward in Parliament.
Leave a comment