Former Minister Udaya Gammanpila has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging provisions of the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, which the Government has presented to Parliament.
The petition names the Attorney General as the respondent. Gammanpila asks the court to declare that certain provisions of the Bill are inconsistent with the Constitution. He says several of them violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
He has also asked the Supreme Court to rule that, if the disputed provisions are to be enacted, they must be approved by a two-thirds majority in Parliament and endorsed at a referendum.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Gammanpila said a writ petition had also been filed in the Court of Appeal against an order issued by the Colombo Fort Magistrate on Friday 16 October. Magistrate Pasan Amarasena ordered that Ven. Ulapane Sumangala Thera and 54 others be prevented from staying outside the Presidential Secretariat in Colombo, and directed the police to remove them from the location.
The monks had marched from Kandy calling for the release of Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera, the General Secretary of the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS). They then sat down in front of the Presidential Secretariat in protest.
The reports did not say when either petition would be taken up.
Background
Under Sri Lanka’s Constitution, a Bill can be challenged in the Supreme Court by petition within 14 days of being placed on the Order Paper of Parliament. The court then determines whether the Bill, or any of its provisions, is inconsistent with the Constitution, and informs the Speaker of its decision.
If the court finds a provision inconsistent, Parliament can pass it only with a special majority of two-thirds of all members. Where the provision touches certain entrenched articles of the Constitution, approval at a referendum is also required. These are the requirements Gammanpila is asking the court to apply to the disputed parts of the Bill.
Counter-terrorism law has been debated for years. Successive governments have pledged to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979, which rights groups and foreign partners have long criticised, and to replace it with new legislation.
The writ jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal allows it to examine the legality of decisions made by lower courts and public authorities.
What it means
Laws on terrorism set out how people can be arrested, held and questioned, so changes to them can affect any citizen, not only those suspected of terrorism offences. If the Supreme Court finds that any provision conflicts with the Constitution, the Government would need either a two-thirds majority in Parliament or a referendum to pass it, depending on the court’s determination.
The Court of Appeal case will test whether the order on the protesting monks can be set aside. Until the court acts, the Fort Magistrate’s order remains in force.
