Sunday Dec 15, 2024
Sunday Dec 15, 2024
Tuesday, 25 April 2017 00:15 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By S.S. Selvanayagam
The Attorney General yesterday presented to Supreme Court that the proposed Foreign Exchange Bill for liberalisation was a matter between the Government and the Central Bank wherein the Government was the principal and the Monetary Board functions as agent whereas the involvement of the Finance Minister is to exercise some powers accountable to Parliament.
Four petitions challenging the Bill titled ‘Foreign Exchange, 2017’ were taken up before the Bench comprising Justices Eva Wanasundera, B.P. Aluvihare and Prasanna S. Jayawardane.
Senior Deputy Solicitor Arjun Obeysekera, appearing for the Attorney General, submitted that in implementing the Foreign Exchange Act the Government is to liberalise the foreign exchange policy to grant general permission.
He stated that the role of the Finance Minister is just to get involved in the appointment of the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Central Bank and members of the Monetary Board.
He contended that none of the provisions of the amended Bill touches on monetary law or any Financial Acts.
He submitted that under the Clause 22 of the Monetary Act, the Central Bank can send its report to the Minister in order for the Government to take action. The Minister takes it to the Cabinet of Ministers and the Cabinet takes it to Parliament.
He said that the Central Bank was the agent of the Government and the duty of the Monetary Board was to take directions on behalf of the Minister.
He submitted that the Minister can make any regulation and publish it in the gazette and the regulation comes into operation but it should be passed by Parliament within six months and the approval of Parliament should be obtained.
Deputy Solicitor General Nerin Pulle, who also appeared for the Attorney General, submitted that the petitioners made their submission based only on the economic policy of the Government.
He also pointed out that no provisions of the impugned Bill impinge on the Constitution.
He, referring to the determination of the Supreme Court, said that therefore the jurisdiction was restricted and it was the legislators who should decide on the statutory piece of enactment.
He stated it is entirely a change of regime to advance the rights of the people and strengthen the sovereignty of the people.
Petitioners inter alia complained that the said Bill gives the upper hand to the Finance Minister and deprives Parliament of its powers.
Joint Opposition Parliamentarian Bandula Gunawardane, public interest litigation lawyers N. Dharshana Weraduwage and Nagananda Kodituwakku and one more petitioner challenged the Bill and sought the special determination of the Supreme Court.
Weraduwage and Kodituwakku appeared for themselves while Canishka G. Witharana appeared for the other two petitioners. Senior Deputy Solicitor General Arjun Obeysekara, Deputy Solicitor General Nerin Pulle and State Counsels Anusha Jayatilake and Suren Gnaraj appeared for the Attorney General.
