Wednesday Dec 04, 2024
Wednesday Dec 04, 2024
Wednesday, 7 July 2021 00:29 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By Chandani Kirinde
The Supreme Court has determined that several clauses in the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (Temporary Provisions) Bill are inconsistent with the Constitution, and will require a special majority in Parliament, as well as approval of the people through a referendum, before it is passed into law, Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena announced yesterday.
The Speaker announced that the two-judge Bench had held that clauses 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10, together with the definition of “COVID-19 circumstances” in clause 12 of the Bill, were inconsistent with Article 3 and 4(c) of the Constitution and could only be passed with a special majority provided for in article 84(2) of the Constitution.
According to the court, the inconsistencies in the Bill would cease if it were amended as recommended and could then be passed with a simple majority in Parliament.
The Bill was tabled in Parliament by Justice Minister Ali Sabry and contains provisions to provide relief to those affected by the pandemic, such as an inability to perform contractual obligations or exercise contractual rights, as well as to conduct court proceedings using remote communication technology.
Under the provisions of the Bill, which will be valid for a period of two years, the relief will cover those who have obtained loans from licensed banks or finance companies, where such a facility is secured, wholly or partially, against any commercial or industrial immovable property, or against any plant, machinery, or fixed asset used for manufacturing, production, or other business purposes.
The relief will also apply to those who are in hire-purchase or lease agreements entered into to hire plant, machinery or fixed asset or commercial vehicles.
The new law will also apply to agreements between housing developers and a purchaser for the sale and purchase of one or more units of housing.
The Bill, once passed by Parliament, will enable the Judicial Service Commission to designate the nearest court of concurrent jurisdiction as the alternative court in place of such courts, for the period during which such COVID-19 situations exist.
If any person is unable to appear in court, or the proceedings of the court cannot be conducted under the ordinary procedure due to COVID-19, such action, application, appeal or proceeding before such court may be conducted by means of a live video or live television link created using a remote communication technology, with such conditions as prescribed by regulations made by the Justice Minister in concurrence with the Chief Justice.
