The government will not hold a referendum on the one clause of the Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill that the Supreme Court said requires one. It will remove or amend the clause instead.
Cabinet Spokesman Minister Nalinda Jayatissa said the government has no intention of putting Clause 17 to a public vote, and will instead seek to pass the Bill’s remaining provisions with the two-thirds majority the Court’s determination requires, the Daily Mirror reported.
Asked whether Clause 17 would be struck out or rewritten at the committee stage, Jayatissa said the government would do one or the other. He did not say which.
The Bill is scheduled for debate in Parliament on 8 October.
What Clause 17 would have done
Clause 17 is the Bill’s harshest provision. It would bar Magistrates from granting bail for offences created under the Anti-Corruption Act and place strict limits on the High Court’s power to grant it.
On 22 September the Supreme Court determined that the clause could become law only with a two-thirds majority and the approval of the people at a referendum — the highest bar the Constitution sets. The Court found it inconsistent with Article 4(c), which vests judicial power in the courts, and so caught by Article 83.
Dropping the clause is the cheaper of the two routes open to the government. A referendum would be the first held in Sri Lanka since 1982.
What survives, and on what majority
The determination Jayatissa was responding to sorts the Bill into three tiers:
| Provision | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Clauses 3, 4, 6(4), 6(5) | Simple majority |
| Clauses 11(1) and 11(2) | Simple majority |
| Clause 6(7) | Two-thirds majority |
| Clause 7 | Withdrawal recommended, or two-thirds |
| Clause 17 | Two-thirds plus referendum |
Clause 6(7) would require the owners, chairpersons and directors of media institutions registered with the Mass Media Ministry, and of entities licensed by the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, to declare their assets and liabilities. The Court found it inconsistent with Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(a).
Clause 7 would repeal the requirement to declare the assets of anyone who has shared a household with a declarant for more than six months. The Court recommended withdrawal; if retained as drafted, it needs a special majority under Article 84(2) read with Article 82(5).
Clause 11(1), which introduces a new Section 88(1)(f), was cleared, as was Clause 11(2) in the form the government has already said it will amend it to at committee stage.
Three figures that do not match our earlier reporting
The Daily Mirror’s account of the determination differs in three places from the version carried by EconomyNext, NewsFirst and Hiru when the Speaker read it to Parliament on 22 September, and we have not been able to resolve the differences:
- On Clause 17, the Daily Mirror cites Article 4(c) alone; the 22 September reports cited Articles 3 and 4(c).
- On Clause 6(7), the Daily Mirror cites Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(a); the 22 September reports cited Article 12(1) only.
- On Clause 7, the Daily Mirror says the repeal at issue is of Section 81(e); the 22 September reports said Section 80(1)(e).
The full determination was ordered printed in the official report of proceedings, which is the document that settles all three.
Not a Cabinet decision
Jayatissa made the remarks at the weekly Cabinet briefing on Tuesday, in answer to questions. The decisions formally taken at the 28 September Cabinet meeting, published by the government’s own news portal, contain no item on the Anti-Corruption Bill. This was a statement of the government’s intention, not a minuted decision.
Context
Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya presented the Bill to Parliament on 19 August. The government says it clears operational bottlenecks, aligns the law with UN standards and satisfies a condition of the IMF programme.
Transparency International Sri Lanka petitioned against it, arguing the amendments “introduce severe policy regressions, create major loopholes, restrict civic space and violate Fundamental Rights.” The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption also challenged parts of the Bill. The Supreme Court concluded its hearings in early September.
Not reported
The Daily Mirror does not say whether the government will delete Clause 17 outright or try to redraft it into a constitutional form, nor whether the bail restrictions were among the provisions required by the IMF. It gives no indication of whether the opposition will support the two-thirds majority the rest of the Bill now needs, and records no response from Transparency International Sri Lanka to the decision. No other verified newsroom had filed on Jayatissa’s remarks at the time of writing.
