The Supreme Court on Friday concluded its consideration of petitions challenging the Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill, and said its confidential determination on the Bill’s constitutionality will be forwarded to the Speaker of Parliament.

Ada Derana reported that the determination will go to both the Speaker and the President; the Daily Mirror referred only to the Speaker, in accordance with constitutional procedure.

Fifteen petitions were considered over two days by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Shiran Gooneratne, Mahinda Samayawardhena and Sampath Wijeratne. Following the close of oral submissions, the court directed all parties to file written submissions by noon on Monday, 7 September.

The 15 petitions, and who filed them

The count settles a discrepancy from the opening day. Ada Derana’s first report on Wednesday, along with Hiru News and the Daily Mirror, put the number at 14; a later Ada Derana filing raised it to 15 without explanation. Every outlet reporting the conclusion now gives 15.

The petitioners named across the three reports include former Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris, Transparency International Sri Lanka, the Media Law Forum and journalist Malinda Seneviratne. The Attorney General is named as respondent.

That answers a question left open in our earlier coverage: TISL’s petition, filed on 31 August against five clauses of the Bill, is among those heard together rather than being taken separately.

Outlets differ on one petitioner’s name. Ada Derana and Hiru News both call it the Media Law Forum; the Daily Mirror calls it the Free Media Forum. Our archive contains no prior reference to either, so the majority spelling is used here.

The presiding judge’s surname is also rendered three ways — Ada Derana and Hiru write Gooneratne, the Daily Mirror Goonaratne, and our earlier report used Gunaratne. This article follows the same-day majority.

What the petitioners argued

The petitioners contend that the proposed amendments would curtail judicial power and infringe fundamental rights, and have asked the court to determine that the Bill can be enacted only with approval at a referendum — the highest constitutional bar for legislation, and one the government has not indicated it intends to meet.

Their objections, set out in more detail during Thursday’s hearing, also cover the public’s right to information and the sovereignty of the people. TISL’s separate objections targeted provisions that would let CIABOC’s Director-General decide whether to refrain from prosecuting accomplices without a magistrate’s authorisation, raise the state shareholding threshold triggering asset-declaration duties from 25 to 50 per cent, remove the duty to declare cohabitants’ assets, and make “bail the exception and remand the norm”.

The Bill would amend the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023 and was placed on Parliament’s Order Paper on 19 August.

The second determination now pending

This is the second constitutional challenge to reach determination stage this month. A separate five-judge bench concluded hearings on the 22nd Amendment on 2 September, with written submissions in that matter due this week. Both turn on whether a referendum is required, and both determinations are now with the court.

The timing is notable: the Bill governs the powers of the same Commission that arrested MP Namal Rajapaksa and former minister Johnston Fernando on Friday.

Not reported

No outlet reported how long the court expects to take, or whether the three-week constitutional deadline for a determination has been extended by the Speaker. None named counsel for the petitioners or set out the Attorney General’s argument in support of the Bill, and none said whether the government will amend the Bill if a referendum is required.

Sources