By Saman Indrajith

Speaker Dr Jagath Wickramarate yesterday informed Parliament that the Supreme Court had determined that several provisions of the Anti-Corruption Amendment Bill could be passed by a simple majority, while key clauses required a special majority and one provision required approval at a referendum.

The Speaker said the Court’s determination on the Bill, which had been challenged under Article 121(1) of the Constitution, had been received and formally communicated to the House.

According to the determination, Clauses 3, 4, 6(0) and 6(5) are not inconsistent with the Constitution and may therefore be passed by a simple majority in Parliament.

However, the Court has held that Clauses 6 and 7 are inconsistent with Articles 12(1) and 14 (1)(a) of the Constitution and can be enacted only with the special majority required under Article 84(2).

The Court further determined that Clause 7, in its present form, is inconsistent with Article 12(1). It therefore directed that the proposed repeal of Section 81 be withdrawn.

Should the government proceed with Clause 7, it must be approved by the special majority prescribed under Article 84(2), read with Article 82(5), according to the determination.

The SC has found that Clause 11(1), which seeks to introduce Section 88(1)(f), is not inconsistent with the Constitution and can be passed by a simple majority.

Similarly, Clause 11(2), as proposed to be amended at the committee stage, was found not to be inconsistent with Articles 10, 12(1), 14(1)(a) and 14(a), and may also be passed by a simple majority.

The most significant finding concerns Clause 17.

The Supreme Court determined that Clause 17 is inconsistent with Article 4(c), read with Article 3, with Article 13(2) also supporting that conclusion.

As a result, Clause 17 can become law only if it receives the special majority required under Article 84(2) and is subsequently approved by the people at a referendum under Article 83.

The determination thus places different constitutional thresholds on the Bill’s provisions, ranging from a simple parliamentary majority to a two-thirds majority and, in the case of Clause 17, a two-thirds majority followed by a referendum.

The National Shoora Council (NSC) has submitted a humanitarian appeal to the King of Saudi Arabia Salman bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia seeking royal clemency and compassionate consideration for Sri Lankan citizen Sivarasa Anujan, convicted and sentenced by a Saudi Court to five years of imprisonment and a financial fine of three million Saudi Riyals for publicizing contemptuous utterances insulting Holy Prophet Muhammed. Sentence is said to have been enhanced in appeal to a sentence of death on Anujan, yet to be confirmed.

The NSC is a home-grown and apolitical umbrella organization representing 14 national-level Muslim organizations in Sri Lanka

The appeal states that ‘while reaffirming respect for the sovereignty, laws, and judicial institutions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’, the NSC has clarified that this appeal ‘does not contest or question the ruling of the competent judicial authorities. Instead, it is submitted strictly on humanitarian grounds, urging consideration of Mr. Anujan’s personal, financial, and family circumstances’.

The appeal signed by NSC President M.M. Zuhair President’s Counsel and NSC General Secretary Rasheed M Imthiyas Attorney at Law highlights key humanitarian factors for the Saudi ruler’s consideration on an urgent basis.

* Sincere Remorse and Repentance: Mr. Anujan has publicly expressed deep regret and genuine repentance via social media, seeking forgiveness and reaffirming his respect for the universally recognized status of Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) and the religious sentiments of Muslims.

* Context of Provocation: The incident arose amid sudden emotional reactions to material circulating on social media following a recent Hindu religious procession in East Sri Lanka. “While not legitimising Anujan’s reactions, the NSC has pleaded for absolute clemency referring to this young man’s subsequent remorse and apology as critically important mitigating circumstances for granting clemency.

* Severe Economic Hardship: Mr. Anujan is a modest-income migrant technocrat employed in Saudi Arabia and supporting a large family in Sri Lanka from his Saudi earnings. His absence places severe financial strain on his dependents, and he lacks the financial capacity to pay the heavy fine, leaving an economically vulnerable family without livelihood.

* Disrupted Life Plans: Prior to his detention, Anujan was preparing to marry a young woman from a low-income family in his village later this year. His current imprisonment has created profound uncertainty and distress for both families.

* Promoting Coexistence and Goodwill: As an organisation dedicated to peaceful coexistence among Sri Lanka’s diverse Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and Christian communities, the NSC believes that a compassionate resolution will bring immense relief, foster interfaith harmony, and further strengthen the longstanding bonds of friendship between Sri Lanka and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

NSC has forwarded copies of the appeal to Sri Lanka President Anura Kumara Dissanayake; Minister of Foreign Affairs Vijitha Herath, Mr. Yaser Bin Abdulrahman Al-Hazme, Chargé d’ Affaires of the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Colombo, Deputy Speaker of Sri Lanka Parliament Dr Rizvie Salih, Governor Haneef Yusuf and Deputy Minister of Religious and Cultural Affairs Muneer Mulaffar.

Parliament will vote on the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution at 7.00 p.m. on September 25, following a two-day debate scheduled for September 24 and 25, according to parliamentary sources.