Connect with us

News

Several provisions of Bill inconsistent with Constitution

Published

on

The Supreme Court had determined that the Colombo Port City Commission Bill could become law if several provisions therein inconsistent with the Constitution were changed, Parliament was told yesterday.

Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, announcing the decision of the Supreme Court, said that the Court had determined that certain provisions of the Bill were not consistent with the Constitution. Those inconsistencies could be rectified as per the directions of the Court. Otherwise, the provisions at issue had to be passed by a special majority in Parliament and approved by the people at a referendum, he added.

 The Speaker’s announcement in Parliament: “I wish to inform the Parliament that I have received the Determination of the Supreme Court in respect of the Bill entitled ” Colombo Port City Economic Commission” 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 ‘Colombo Port City Economic Commission’ is as follows:

01. The provisions of clauses 3(6), 30 (3) second proviso, 55(2) and 58 (1) of the bill are inconsistent with Article 12 (1) of the constitution and could be validly passed only with the Special Majority provided for in Article 84 (2) of the constitution.

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as mentioned in the determination of the Supreme Court.

02. The provisions of clauses 3 (5) proviso, 3 (7), 6 (1) (b), 30 (3) first proviso, 71 (1), and 74 (Interpretation ‘Regulatory Authority”) of the bill are inconsistent with Article 12 (1) of the constitution and could be validly passed only with the Special Majority provided for in Article 84 (2) of the constitution.

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as mentioned in the determination of the Supreme Court.

03. The provisions of clauses 3 (4), 6 (1) (u), 68 (1) (f) and 68 )3) are inconsistent with Article 76 read with Articles 3 and 4 of the constitution and could be validly passed only with the Special Majority provided for in Article 84 (2) of the constitution and approved by the People at a Referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83.

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as mentioned in the determination of the Supreme Court.

04. The provisions of Clause 52 (3) read with clauses 52 (5) and 71 (2) (p) of the bill are inconsistent with Article 148 of the constitution and could be validly passed only with the Special Majority provided for in Article 84 (2) of the constitution and approved by the People at a Referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83.

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as mentioned in the determination of the Supreme Court.

05. The provisions of Clauses 30 (1), 33 (1), 40 (2), and 71 (2) (l) of the bill are inconsistent with Article 14 (1) (h) of the constitution and could be validly passed only with the Special Majority provided for in Article 84 (2) of the constitution.

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as mentioned in the determination of the Supreme Court.

06. The provisions of clauses 53 (2) (b) read with clause 53 (3) (b) of the bill are inconsistent with Article 76 of the constitution read with Articles 3 and 4 of the constitutions and could be validly passed only with the Special Majority provided for in Article 84 (2) of the constitution and approved by the People at a Referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83.

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as mentioned in the determination of the Supreme Court.

07. The provisions of clauses 60 (c) and clause 60 (f) of the bill are inconsistent with Article 148 of the constitution and could be validly passed only with the Special Majority provided for in Article 84 (2).

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as mentioned in the determination of the Supreme Court.

08. The provisions of clause 37 of the bill is inconsistent with Article 12 (1) and 14 (1) (g) of the constitution and could be validly passed only with the Special Majority provided for in Article 84 (2).

However, the said inconsistency will cease if a new sub-clause is added to clause 37 of the bill restraining such authorized person making use of any exemptions or incentives granted under this bill when conducting business outside the area of authority of the Colombo Port City to the detriment of similar businesses conducted outside such area of authority by within the territory of Sri Lanka. The Supreme Court had determined that the rest of the clauses of the bill are not inconsistent with the constitution.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Death threats won’t deter us – EC Chairman

Published

on

By

Nimal Punchihewa (Chairman ECSL) picture by PRIYAN DE SILVA
Chairman of the Election Commission of Sri Lanka Nimal Punchihewa told The Island that members of  the election commission won’t be deterred by death threats.
He said that members of the commission  M M Mohamed,  K P P Pathirana and S B Diwarathne have been repeatedly threatened and the police have not been able to apprehend the perpetrators.
Continue Reading

News

Three people dead after torrential rain in New Zealand

Published

on

By

At least three people have died due to flash flodding in Auckland (picture BBC)

BBC reported that at least three people have died and one is missing after New Zealand’s largest city experienced its “wettest day on record” on Friday.

Auckland is said to have received 75% of its usual summer rainfall in just 15 hours.

A local state of emergency was declared as authorities managed evacuations and widespread flooding.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Chris Hipkins thanked emergency services for their swift response to the disaster.The new prime minister travelled to Auckland, where he also expressed his condolences to the loved ones of those who died in the floods.

“The loss of life underscores the sheer scale of this weather event and how quickly it turned tragic”, he said in a news conference on Saturday afternoon.

The downpour flooded the airport, shifted houses and resulted in power cuts to homes for hours.

New Zealand’s defence forces were mobilised to assist with evacuations and emergency shelters were set up across the city.

Continue Reading

News

Parliament prorogued on Friday night

Published

on

President says cabinet agreeable to fully implementing 13 A until party leaders decide whether or not to abolish the Amendment

Parliament was prorogued from midnight Friday (27) by President Ranil Wickremesinghe under powers vested in him by Article 70 of the Constitution, parliamentary sources said on Friday.

The Department of Government Printing was due to issue the relevant notification on Friday night but it was not out as this edition went to print.However the President’ Media Division (PMD) confirmed the prorogation on Friday evening saying that President Wickremesinghe “is expected” to make a policy statement based on the decisions taken after the 75th Independence anniversary when parliament recommences on Feb.8.

A separate bulletin said that the president had informed the party leaders Conference on Reconciliation that the cabinet was agreeable to “fully implementing (the) 13th Amendment until party leaders decide whether or not to abolish the Amendment.”

Parliamentary sources explained that a prorogation which is a temporary recess of parliament, should not extend to a period of more than two months, However, such date for summoning parliament may be advanced by another presidential proclamation provided it is summoned for a date not less than three days from the date of such fresh proclamation.

Political observers believe that the prorogation is related to the president’s effort to secure as wide a consensus as possible on the National Question. They dismissed speculation that it is related to the scheduled local elections. This issue was clarified by the PMD bulletin.

When parliament is prorogued, the proclamation should notify the date of the commencement of the new session of parliament under Article 70 of the Constitution.During the prorogation the speaker continues to function and MPs retain their membership of the legislature even though they do not attend meetings of the House.

The effect of a prorogation is to suspend all current business before the House and all proceedings pending at the time are quashed except impeachments.A Bill, motion or question of the same substance cannot be introduced for a second time during the same session. However, it could be carried forward at a subsequent session after a prorogation.

“All matters which having been duly brought before parliament, have not been disposed of at the time of the prorogation, may be proceeded with during the next session,” states the paragraph (4) of article 70 of the constitution.

In the light of this constitutional provision, a prorogation does not result in an end to pending business. Thus, a pending matter may be proceeded with from that stage onwards after the commencement of the new session.

At the beginning of a new session all items of business which were in the order paper need to be re-listed, if it is desired to continue with them.At the end of a prorogation a new session begins and is ceremonially declared open by the president.

He is empowered under the constitution to make a statement of government policy at the commencement of each session of parliament and to preside at ceremonial sittings of parliament in terms of the provisions of paragraph (2) of article 33 of the constitution.The president is empowered to make a statement of government policy at the commencement of each new session. In the past, it was known as the Throne Speech which was delivered by the Governor-General.

Continue Reading

Trending