SC determines some clauses in PTA Bill inconsistent with Constitution

The Supreme Court has determined that some clauses in the Bill entitled ‘Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment)’ are inconsistent with the Constitution.

Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena informed Parliament today about the Supreme Court determination.

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

The Speaker also said that the Supreme Court holds that 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.

The Supreme Court has also said that the Additional Solicitor General has informed the Court that the Attorney General would be advising the Minister of Foreign Affairs to insert Article 141 into the body of 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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. (Colombo Gazette)