Petitions pile up against Port City Bill

• Multiple petitions filed against proposed Port City Commission Bill 
• Five-judge Bench appointed to take up petitions 
• Petitioners include Opposition politicians, BASL, and civil society
• Petitions say Bill in contravention of multiple clauses in the Constitution 
• Appeal for SC to require two-thirds majority and referendum to pass the Bill
• Others also called for Bill to be placed before Provincial Councils for ratification 
• BASL warns Bill will infringe on Judiciary, parliamentary powers and sovereignty    

By S. S. Selvanayagam

A five-judge bench was appointed by the Supreme Court yesterday following more than half a dozen petitions being filed against the Port City Commission Bill on grounds that the proposed legislation is in contravention of the Constitution with different petitions appealing for it to be passed with a two-thirds majority, a referendum and approved by provincial councils.  

Petitions were filed by multiple politicians and organisers, including the United National Party (UNP) General Secretary Palitha Range Bandara, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) Parliamentarian Wasantha Samarasinghe, Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL), Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and Engineer G. Kapila Renuka Perera. 

The two petitions filed by Perera and CPA will be taken up before a panel of five judges headed by Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya comprising of Justices P.B. Aluwihare, Priyantha Jayawardena, Murdu N.B. Fernando and Janak de Silva on 19 Monday.

The different petitions all highlighted that several clauses of the Constitution could be breached by the passage of the Port City Commission Bill and appealed for the Supreme Court to intervene. Several petitions called for the Bill to be changed to be in line with the Constitution, require two-thirds majority to be passed by parliament, necessitate the holding of a referendum and to be placed before Provincial Councils for approval. 

TISL also filed a petition raising corruption concerns, including the possibility that the Bill could pave the way for facilitating or enabling illicit financial flows and money laundering. TISL also drew attention to the lack of transparency in ownership of the “offshore” businesses that will be set up at the Port City, since ultimate owners of businesses need not be disclosed. TISL also said it is concerned by the lack of transparency in relation to offshore banking operations that could be free from the purview of the regulatory framework governing local banks. Several petitions also cited the Bill evading parliamentary oversight on public funds, which they argued was infringing on the rights of all Sri Lankans. 

Meanwhile, the BASL, releasing a statement, said they were concerned about the Bill contravening multiple clauses in the Constitution. The Association also questioned why the Government decided to enter the Bill into the order book ahead of the New Year holidays, which severely limited the amount of time for the public to exercise their rights. 

“The Executive Committee of the BASL notes that the provisions in the Bill that directly affect the judiciary and the legal profession which are found in Part XIII (International Commercial Dispute Resolution Center) and Part XIV (Priority Hearing in Legal Proceedings) of the Bill could lead to an ouster of the jurisdiction of Courts, infringe on judicial discretion and violate the principle of the equality of parties before the law and therefore may violate Articles 3, 4, 12 and 14 of the Constitution. The aforesaid Articles of the Constitution pertain inter alia to the Sri Lankan State, the Unitary Status of the Republic, the Sovereignty of the People, the fundamental rights of the people and the powers of Parliament.”  

The BASL committee appointed to study the Bill recommended that the Association should file a petition before the Supreme Court, challenge the constitutionality of the Bill under Article 120 of the Constitution, call for observations from its Members, including Members who have the required expertise, and request the Government to defer any further action on this Bill for a reasonable time to enable the BASL to engage with and consult the relevant stakeholders and contribute fully in this important national endeavour. “The Interim Report and the recommendations of the Committee were unanimously approved and adopted by the Executive Committee at a Special Meeting on 12 April. Therefore, in furtherance of the Objects of the Association set out in Article 2.1 of the Constitution of the BASL, the Executive Committee directed the President and Secretary to challenge the Bill under Article 120 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court and also to write to the President and the Prime Minister bringing to their attention the concerns of the BASL,” the statement added.  

The Executive Committee of the BASL also appealed for the Government to defer further action on the Bill, until the views of all stakeholders, including the public, are sought and given due consideration. Shortly after the statement was released, Bar Association President Saliya Peiris also filed a petition before the Supreme Court.   

The Government has, however, maintained that the Bill will not undermine the Constitution or infringe on the sovereignty of the people.