Some clauses of the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill are inconsistent with the Constitution, Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne announced in Parliament on Thursday, reading out the Supreme Court’s determination.
The Bill was challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 121(1) of the Constitution, the Daily Mirror reported.
What the Court decided
The Court determined that Parliament may pass the Bill by a simple majority, provided the amendments it specified are made at the Committee Stage. Three of those amendments have already been undertaken by the Additional Solicitor General.
The practical effect is that the legislation is not blocked. Without the committee-stage changes, the inconsistent clauses would require a higher threshold; with them, the Bill proceeds on an ordinary vote.
The four amendments
A fuller account published later on Thursday by EconomyNext sets out the determination the Speaker read to the House. The Court required four changes:
- Clause 26.2 to be amended by inserting the phrase “on the application of such police officer”. With that insertion, a magistrate before whom a suspect is produced may authorise a further period of police custody not exceeding 24 hours only on the application of the investigating officer, and for reasons recorded in writing, where that officer has reasonable grounds to believe extended custody is necessary for further investigation.
- Clause 59.5(b) to be amended by substituting “Court of Appeal” with “Supreme Court” — in the Court’s words, “to make the judicial oversight effective”.
- Clause 60(7) to be removed from the Bill “on the basis that it is superfluous”.
- Clause 66.1 to be reframed so that executive orders, directives or directions issued under the Act “may be questioned under proceedings article 126, 140 or 141 of the Constitution” — the fundamental rights, writ and habeas corpus jurisdictions.
The Speaker ordered that the full determination be printed in the official report of the day’s proceedings, and said three of the four amendments had already been undertaken by the Additional Solicitor General at committee stage.
Hiru News independently reported the same announcement, summarising the changes as covering the extended police detention provisions and the substitution of the Supreme Court for the Court of Appeal in the supervisory role.
The two surviving points of substance are therefore the custody safeguard — a magistrate can no longer extend detention on the court’s own motion — and the elevation of oversight from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
Why it matters
A determination under Article 121(1) is the only point at which Sri Lankan legislation can be tested against the Constitution before it is enacted. Once a Bill is passed, the courts cannot strike it down.
The Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill is the successor to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and has drawn sustained objection. The Speaker told Parliament in September that 40 petitions had been filed against it. This desk has reported objections from the Ceylon Chamber over GSP+ exposure, the Christian Council, PAFFREL and the Joint Opposition on media freedom grounds, as well as a government offer of open discussion on the Bill.
A caution on names
This determination concerns the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill. It is not the Prevention of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, nor the Suppression of Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Bill, both of which have had separate Supreme Court determinations reported under closely similar headlines. The three are distinct instruments.
Still not reported
The determination as read out does not state which constitutional articles the original clauses offended, or the Court’s reasoning. It does not identify which three of the four amendments the Additional Solicitor General has already made, leaving one outstanding. It gives no date for the Committee Stage.
Correction to an earlier sourcing note. This article first stated that searches of EconomyNext, NewsFirst, Hiru, Daily FT, The Island, News.lk and Daily News had returned no independent account of Thursday’s announcement, and that the report rested on a single verified source. That is no longer accurate: EconomyNext and Hiru News both filed on the same announcement later the same day, and both are now cited above. The original note reflected the position at the time of first publication, a few hours after the Speaker spoke. The September petitions report linked above remains older background, cited with its date rather than as current reporting.
