The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has asked every party in Parliament to let its MPs speak and vote on the 22nd Amendment according to conscience, two days before the House is expected to pass it.

The call, issued in a statement and reported by Daily Mirror, comes after the Supreme Court determined that the Bill does not require approval at a referendum.

The distinction the BASL is drawing

The Association’s central argument is that the determination answered a narrower question than it is being read to answer.

Under Articles 120, 121 and 123 of the Constitution, it said, the Court’s jurisdiction is to determine the constitutional requirements for a Bill’s enactment — including whether Article 83 compels a referendum. “The Determination is therefore not a determination as to whether the proposed Amendment is good or bad policy, desirable or undesirable, wise or unwise, or whether Parliament ought to enact it.”

It pointed to the record of the second republican Constitution to make the point concrete: across its 48 years there have been “many amendments which passed constitutional muster but nevertheless had a negative effect on democracy, constitutionalism, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.”

That question — whether Parliament ought to enact it — now rests with each member individually, the statement said, and MPs should weigh “the possible and probable consequences,” along with what the Association called “the lack of transparency and a proper consultative process in the introduction of the 22nd Amendment.”

The list of objectors, set out in one place

The BASL asked MPs to consider concerns raised by a cross-section of institutions, and named them: the Maha Nayakes of the Three Nikayas, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Sri Lanka, the Church of Ceylon, the BASL itself, the Judicial Service Association, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, LAWASIA, the International Association of Judges, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, the French National Bar Council, and more than 40 professional associations and unions including the Government Medical Officers’ Association.

Most have appeared separately in this story over the past two months. This is the first time they have been listed together in a single statement.

The timetable

The debate runs Thursday and Friday, with the vote taken after it and requiring a two-thirds majority, Hiru News reported. Daily Mirror reports Parliament is set to approve the Bill on Friday with that majority. The two-day slot was fixed on September 10.

Announcing the determination, Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne said the Court required two changes to Clause 2: a phrase in the Sinhala text of the proviso is to be replaced, and a second proviso added so that the six-year term limit does not apply to whoever holds the office of Chief Justice when the Act comes into force.

The Court separately determined that the accompanying Judicature (Amendment) Bill is not inconsistent with the Constitution and may pass on a simple majority.

A record 67 petitions seeking a Special Determination were filed against the 22nd Amendment and heard by a five-judge bench. The figure is unrelated to the retirement age of 67 that the amendment itself sets for judges, though the two numbers appear together throughout the coverage.