Certain sections inconsistent with Constitution
By Saman Indrajith
Deputy Speaker Ajith Rajapaksa informed Parliament yesterday that the Supreme Court (SC) has determined that some sections of the Anti-Terrorism Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution and, therefore, the Bill had to be passed by Parliament with a two-thirds majority and approved by the people at a referendum.
Rajapaksa said that the Supreme Court had determined that the Sections 3, 4, 40, 53, 70, 72 (1), 72 (2), 75 (3) and 83 (7) of the draft Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
The SC has determined that sections 3, 40, 53, 70, 72 (1), 75 (3) should be passed by Parliament with a two-thirds majority and approved by the people at a referendum if they are to become law.
Sections 4 and 72 (2) of the Bill have to be amended as per the SC determination.
Section 83 (7) requires passage by a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
However, the SC had stated that it could be passed by a simple majority if the recommended amendments are accommodated, Rajapaksa said.
Opposition MPs say the Anti-Terrorism Bill is being introduced in an election year to repress Opposition parties.They said the proposed law is a threat to democracy itself.
“This Bill is being presented not at a time of terrorism prevailing in the country but during an election period. The Bill has not defined nor analysed what a terrorist is. Anyone can be arrested,” SJB General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara said.
The MP said both the Anti-Terrorism Bill and the controversial Online Safety law were meant to quell democracy.
