Gammanpila fires salvo at Speaker over CBSL Bill

• Pivithuru Hela Urumaya Leader MP accuses Speaker of violating parliamentary privileges
• Questions why SC has proposed 80 amendments if the bill is constitutional as claimed by Speaker
• Says he will raise an issue of parliamentary privilege over the issue and calls for internal inquiry on the official who may have purposely or negligently misled the Speaker to make erroneous announcement
• Claims bill consists of a plethora of mistakes and that no other bill with this many mistakes has been presented to Parliament in recent times
• Asks CBSL and Ministry of Finance to reveal the entity that drafted the bill and how much was paid for it

Pivithuru Hela Urumaya Leader Parliamentarian Udaya Gammanpila

Speaker of Parliament  Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena

Pivithuru Hela Urumaya Leader Parliamentarian Udaya Gammanpila yesterday accused Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena of violating the parliamentary privileges of MPs and misleading Parliament through his announcement on the Supreme Court determination on the Central Bank Amendment Bill.

On 4 April, Abeywardena announced to Parliament that the Supreme Court had informed him the bill can be passed by a simple majority in Parliament as it was not unconstitutional. Gammanpila said the Supreme Court has suggested 80 amendments contained in 54 pages.

“If the court agrees with the entire bill then what has the Supreme Court said in 54 pages?” Gammanpila queried during a briefing to the media yesterday. 

He said as an MP who challenged the bill in court and a lawyer he will raise an issue of privilege in Parliament.

Gammanpila said the Supreme Court can only determine four factors of a draft bill. “It can say either the bill needs a two-thirds majority in Parliament as a particular provision violates the constitution or that a referendum along with a two-thirds majority in Parliament is needed to pass a certain provision that is deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court can also comment that if certain amendments are made or if the bill is found to be within the constitution that it can be passed by a simple majority,” he said. 

The MP said the Supreme Court always presents the provisions that are deemed unconstitutional and propose the manner in which they must be amended. “The courts then say once amendments are done it can be passed by a simple majority in Parliament,” he noted. 

The MP said the official that instructed the Speaker had merely read out the final passage, which was understood as the Courts have determined the bill is within the constitution.

“The Speaker had no time to read 54 pages out. The official who helped the Speaker either through negligence or purposely misled him. An internal inquiry must be conducted on the matter,” the MP said. “The draft bill is similar to a letter written by a child. 80 amendments have been suggested. No bill with this many mistakes has been presented in Parliament in recent times.” he alleged.

“Among them are the amendments proposed by the Supreme Court as well as the amendments submitted to the Supreme Court by the Attorney General which were made by the Government at the time of the committee stage. If those amendments are not made, the bill must be passed by a two-thirds majority. The Supreme Court has also ruled that in order to pass Articles 19(2), 19(5), 19(6), 26, 28 and 111(2), in addition to a two-thirds majority in the Parliament, the people must also approve it in a referendum,” he said. The MP also claimed the Central Bank Amendment Bill was not drafted by the Government’s Legal Draftsman. 

“The CBSL or the Ministry of Finance must make an announcement as to who drafted this bill with its plethora of mistakes and how much was paid for it,” he noted.