News
Private member’s Bill deemed unconstitutional:Tissa says he only complied with ‘Bills Office’ request
… rejects Dr. Amarasekera’s concerns
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) lawmaker Tissa Attanayake says that he moved the controversial ‘Human Rights Organisation (Incorporation) Act’ on the request of Bills Office of the Parliament.
National List MP Attanayake insists he only tried to help the Bills Office as he felt it was a quite legitimate request. The former General Secretary of the UNP acknowledged that he was aware of the unsuccessful bids made in 2013 and 2015 to move the same Bill.
When The Island pointed out that the Supreme Court recently deemed the Bill unconstitutional, MP Attanayake pointed out that Parliament adopted a transparent process in that regard. “I have nothing to hide. In fact, I have absolutely no interest in this particular Bill. Sometimes, the Bills Office seeks our help to present Bills that had been held up for various reasons,” MP Attanayake said.
Attanayake is one of the seven National List MPs in the 54-member SJB parliamentary group.
Asked whether he was aware of Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera, on behalf of the Federation of National Organisations (FNO) recently taking up the matter with SJB and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, MP Attanayake said that he explained the issue at hand to the party leader. Declaring his move on behalf of the Bills Office nothing but routine assistance provided by MPs on request, lawmaker Attanayake acknowledged that the SJB leader inquired from him about the issue.
Dr. Amarasekera wrote to MP Premadasa with copies to Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena in the wake of The Island report, headlined ‘SC deems SJB MP’s move unconstitutional’ published, with strapline ‘How Parliament violated Standing Orders and Constitution in gazetting twice rejected controversial Bill’ on Sept.09 edition.
MP Attanayake dismissed accusations that he had been involved in a clandestine project meant to undermine the country. “Anyone who believes I have been part of any such project should have his or her head examined,” MP Attanayake.
Responding to another query, MP Attanayake emphasized that the course of action followed by the Parliament as regards the disputed Bill shouldn’t have created such a controversy.
Dr. Amarasekera has requested Premier Rajapaksa, Speaker Abeywardena and SJB leader Premadasa to inquire into the matter.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena and Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere ruled that Clause 6 of the Bill is not consistent with Article 76(1) of the Constitution. The SC has also ruled that Clause 7 of the Bill is not consistent with Articles 3, 4 and 12(1) of the Constitution. Having said so, the SC declared that in terms of the Article 123(2) of the Constitution, the Bill should be passed by a special majority in line with paragraph (2) of Article 84 and endorsed at a Referendum.
Dr. Wasantha Bandara, Raja Goonerathne and Nuwan Ballantudawa moved the SC in terms of Article 121 of the Constitution. In their petition, the Attorney General was named the respondent.
Dr. Amarasekera pointed out in his letter Dr. Bandara said that the same Private Bill had been previously submitted by H. Farook in 2013 (not Hunais Farook as previously reported) and Ali Zahir Moulana in 2015. However, on both occasions, they had failed to proceed with the project due to objections raised by the relevant ministers, Dr. Amarasekera said.
According to the petition the Bill had been gazetted on July 20, 2021 and placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on August 3 without obtaining the Attorney General’s opinion. Therefore the procedure adopted by Parliament not only violated Standing Orders but Article 78 (2) of the Constitution as well, the SC noted on the basis of submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.
MP Attanayake said that he was given an opportunity to submit the Bill in question with required amendments in terms of the SC ruling. “I didn’t want to do that. Therefore, I have nothing to do with it anymore.”
Asked whether he obtained prior permission from the party to move that Bill, MP Attanayake insisted that there was absolutely no requirement to do so. Members moved Private Bills all the time, the MP said.
Dr. Amarasekera said that Parliament should inquire into this. How Bills Ofice secured privately an MP’s help to move such a controversial matter without it being subjected to Attorney General’s perusal. Dr. Amarasekera said that MP Attanayake’s claim pertaining to the role played by the Bills Office should be properly inquired into.
The Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) yesterday demanded an immediate termination of what it called a “secretive and dangerous” defence agreement signed between Sri Lanka and India, during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 05 April visit.
Addressing a press conference at the party’s headquarters in Nugegoda, FSP Education Secretary Pubudu Jagoda described the agreement as a “betrayal of the nation” and a “crime against the people,” urging the government to invoke Article 12 of the deal and exit it with the required three months’ notice.
Jagoda said the document, which surfaced on social media after being published by a news portal, appears to be the actual agreement signed between the two countries. “The government has not denied its authenticity. That silence is telling,” he said.
Jagoda added that the agreement bears the signatures of Sri Lanka’s Defence Ministry Secretary Sampath Thuiyakontha and Indian High Commissioner Santosh Jha.
“What’s most troubling,” Jagoda warned, “is that both governments attempted to keep the agreement under wraps. Unlike the 1987 Indo-Lanka Accord, which was made public with all annexures, this agreement was hidden from the people, and even now, we don’t know how many other agreements exist between India and Sri Lanka.”
Jagoda said that a Right to Information request made on 04 April was met with a reply from the President’s Office stating that it had no copies of the agreement—raising serious concerns about transparency, even at the highest level. “One could question whether the President has seen it because his office does not have it,” Jagoda said.
The 12-clause of agreement reportedly covers areas such as exchange and training of military personnel, defence industry collaboration, classified information protection, and military medical services, including battlefield healthcare and telemedicine.
Jagoda said the definition of “classified information” in Clause 7 was alarmingly broad. “It allows India to label virtually anything as secret. Even weapons or military assets transferred under this agreement cannot be revealed—not even after the agreement ends,” he said, citing Clause 7.3.
Clause 10 prohibits either country from taking disputes to international courts or involving third-party mediators. “It’s like asking a rabbit to negotiate with a tiger,” Jagoda quipped, drawing parallels to the complications of the 1987 accord, which eventually saw Indian peacekeeping troops refusing to leave until a change in the Indian government.
Jagoda accused the NPP-led government of hypocrisy, pointing out that the JVP, the main component of the current regime, had vehemently opposed Indo-Lanka Accord in 1987. “Now they’ve gone and signed an even more dangerous deal,” he said.
Citing Clause 12, which allows either party to withdraw with three months’ notice, the FSP called on the government to act immediately to exit the pact. “We urge the people to unite and defeat these underhanded, sovereignty-eroding deals. The FSP stands ready to lead that fight,” Jagoda said.
The police yesterday arrested a group of students, including the Convener of the Inter-University Students’ Federation (IUSF), Madushan Chandradith, during a protest held by the Allied Health Science Graduates’ Union in front of the Health Ministry yesterday.
The police obtained an order from Maligakanda Magistrate’s Court, earlier in the day, to prevent protesters from invading the Colombo Hospital Square and the Health Ministry.
Inspector General of Police T.M.W. Deshabandu Tennakoon is set to face formal questioning on Monday (19 May) over serious allegations of misconduct and abuse of power, parliamentary sources said yesterday.
A special Committee appointed to investigate the claims will commence formal proceedings next week, following several rounds of preliminary discussions held within the parliamentary complex in recent weeks.
The IGP has been officially notified to appear before the Committee and is expected to face the inquiry for the first time at 2:00 PM in Committee Room No. 8.
The Committee, which met again on Thursday (15) to finalise arrangements, is investigating allegations that Tennakoon misused his official powers in a manner deemed severe and improper.
-
Features6 days agoSAITM Graduates Overcome Adversity, Excel Despite Challenges
-
Opinion6 days agoDrs. Navaratnam’s consultation fee three rupees NOT Rs. 300
-
News6 days agoDestined to be pope:Brother says Leo XIV always wanted to be a priest
-
Sports6 days agoASBC Asian U22 and Youth Boxing Championships from Monday
-
Features5 days agoChampioning Geckos, Conservation, and Cross-Disciplinary Research in Sri Lanka
-
Business6 days agoDilmah – HSBC future writers festival attracts 150+ entries
-
Midweek Review3 days agoBronze statue for P’karan, NPP defeat in the North and 16th anniversary of triumph over terrorism
-
Business6 days agoBloom Hills Holdings wins Gold for Edexcel and Cambridge Education