Thursday Sep 19, 2024
Thursday Sep 19, 2024
Wednesday, 8 August 2018 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Speaker Karu Jayasuriya told Parliament yesterday that the Supreme Court had determined the Office for Reparations Bill was inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore would need to be amended or require a two-thirds majority and a referendum to be approved.
In terms of Article 123 (1) of the Constitution, Clauses 27 (a) and 27 (a) (m) of the Office for Reparations Bill are inconsistent with Article 4 (c) and Article 3 of the Constitution, the Speaker said.
Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, announced the Supreme Court determination in respect of petitions filed in terms of Article 121(1) of the Constitution in Parliament.
“The Bill could only become law if the number of votes cast in favour thereof amounts to not less than two-thirds of the whole number of members (including those not present), is approved by the people at a referendum.”
“However, the Supreme Court has stated that the inconsistency would cease and may be passed with a simple majority if the clauses are amended as opined by this Court. The Supreme Court has further determined that other provisions of the Bill are not in conflict with the Constitution. I order that the determination of the Supreme Court be printed in the Official Report of today’s proceedings,” he added.
The Office of Reparations Bill is aimed at providing legal provisions for the establishment of the Office for Reparations, to identify war-affected people eligible for reparations. Similar to the Office of Missing Persons, the establishment of this new office is part of the matters envisaged in the UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka adopted on 1 October 2015. The Bill is meant to identify aggrieved persons eligible for reparations, and to provide for the provision of individual and collective reparations to such persons to repeal the Rehabilitation of Persons, Properties and Industries Authority Act No. 29 of 1987. (AH)
