Minister of Industry and Entrepreneurship Development Sunil Handunnetti says some groups are deliberately misinterpreting President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s recent statement on the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.
The President told a public rally in Bulathsinhala that the 22nd Amendment Bill would be passed in Parliament as soon as possible. Opposition MPs raised concerns about the remarks, questioning whether a government promising swift passage was pre-empting the courts.
Speaking on TV Derana’s “360°” programme on Monday night, Handunnetti said there was no contradiction between the President’s statement and the constitutional process, Ada Derana reported.
The two-thirds argument
Asked whether the President’s pledge to pass the Bill immediately after the Supreme Court’s determination could undermine public confidence in the judiciary, the minister said it could not.
“No. We are bringing this precisely to have it passed by Parliament. Whatever determination the Supreme Court makes, the first requirement would be to obtain a two-thirds majority in Parliament, along with a referendum where required. Alternatively, if the Supreme Court determines that a referendum is not necessary, the Bill can be passed with a two-thirds majority in Parliament. In both circumstances, obtaining a two-thirds majority in Parliament is essential.”
Pressed on whether the Government could pass the Bill immediately if the court ruled a referendum was required, Handunnetti said the President had committed only to a parliamentary vote.
“There is no contradiction between what our President said and that position. The President said only that it would be passed in Parliament immediately. If the Supreme Court determines that a referendum is required, there is no issue with that.”
What is actually at stake
The distinction Handunnetti is drawing is between passage and entry into force. Under Article 83 of the Constitution — the entrenchment clause — a Bill inconsistent with Article 3, which vests sovereignty in the people, requires approval at a referendum in addition to a two-thirds parliamentary majority. A two-thirds vote alone would not bring such a Bill into effect.
That clause is the centre of the case against the amendment. Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has grounded his referendum demand in articles 3, 4 and 83, and the Bar Association has made the same argument on judicial independence.
Handunnetti’s answer concedes the referendum point rather than contesting it — his position is that the Government expects to win a two-thirds majority either way, and would accept a referendum if the court orders one.
The Supreme Court’s determination on the Bill is expected to reach the Speaker this sitting week. Until then its contents are confidential to the court.
Not reported
Ada Derana does not name the opposition MPs whose criticism prompted the response, and gives no indication of the Government’s current whip count. No other verified newsroom has covered the interview, which aired on Ada Derana’s own group television channel.
