Sri Lanka's Supreme Court has determined that a key provision of the proposed Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill requires approval at a referendum if Parliament seeks to enact it in its present form.
Speaker Dr Jagath Wickramaratne announced the Supreme Court determination to Parliament.
The determination is separate from the Court's decision concerning the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, for which the Court determined that a referendum was not required subject to specified changes.
The two Bills and their constitutional determinations must not be conflated.
Clause 17
The Court determined that Clause 17, in its present form, may become law only if it receives the special majority required under Article 84(2) and is approved by the people at a referendum.
The provision concerns proposed restrictions relating to bail for offences under the anti-corruption legislation.
The determination does not necessarily mean a referendum must now be held.
Parliament and the Government may instead alter or remove provisions identified by the Court in accordance with the determination.
Other provisions
The Court also determined that Clause 6(7) requires a special parliamentary majority.
Another issue concerns Clause 7 and the proposed repeal of Section 80(1)(e).
The Court determined that the relevant repeal should be withdrawn unless it obtains the constitutionally required special majority.
Other provisions identified in the determination may proceed by simple majority where the constitutional concerns are addressed as specified by the Court.
Bill has not been enacted
The Supreme Court determination does not itself enact or reject the Anti-Corruption Amendment Bill.
The legislation remains subject to the parliamentary process.
The next significant development will be whether the Government changes or withdraws the constitutionally problematic provisions or seeks the enhanced approval required for them.
---