SC rules certain clauses in Prevention of Terrorism Amendment Bill not consistent with Constitution

Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena informed Parliament yesterday that the Supreme Court had determined that certain clauses in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill were not consistent with the Constitution and need to be amended before being enacted into laws.

He announced to the House that the Supreme Court had also observed that the third clause of the Bill needs to be passed with a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The Speaker’s announcement in full: I wish to announce to the Parliament that I have received the Determination of the Supreme Court in respect of the Bill entitled “Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment)” which was challenged in the Supreme Court in terms of Article 121 (1) of the Constitution.

The determination of the Supreme Court as to the constitutionality of the Bill entitled “Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment)” is as follows:—

Clause 2 of the Bill

The Supreme Court holds that Clause 2 of the Bill is not inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution.

Clause 3 of the Bill

The Supreme Court holds that the Clause 3 of the Bill cannot be enacted in to law unless the number of votes cast in favour thereof amounts to not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members (including those not present), as per the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is however of the view that if the provisions in Clause 3 of the Bill are amended as set out in the Determination of the Supreme Court, it would cease to be inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution.

Clause 4 of the Bill

The Supreme Court states that be that as it may, the learned Additional Solicitor General has informed the Court that the Hon. The Attorney General would be advising the Minister to insert Article 141 into the body of the proposed Section 10 in Clause 4 of the Bill and that the Minister would move that amendment at the Committee Stage of Parliament to address the concerns of the Petitioners.

Clause 5 of the Bill

For the reasons mentioned in the Determination of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court holds that Clause 5 of the Bill is not inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution.

Clause 6 of the Bill

The Supreme Court holds that it cannot inquire into or in any manner called in question, the validity of Section 11 of the PTA on any ground whatsoever in terms of Article 80 (3) of the Constitution.

Clause 10 of the Bill

The Supreme Court holds that Clause 10 of the Bill, if amended as set out in the determination of the Supreme Court, would cease to be inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution.

Clause 11 of the Bill

The Supreme Court has stated that there is no basis to hold that Clause 11 of the Bill is inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution.

Clause 12 of the Bill

The Supreme Court is of the view that the proposed Section 26(2) in Clause 12 in that form would be inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has stated that as per Article 123(1)(c), that if the provisions in the proposed Section 26(2) in Clause 12 of the Bill are amended as set out in the determination of the Supreme Court, it would cease to be inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution.

I order that the determination of the Supreme Court be printed in the Official Report of today’s proceedings.”