CPA files case in SC against 2013 Appropriation Bill

Wednesday, 17 October 2012 00:33 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) yesterday filed an application for Special Determination of the Supreme Court against the Appropriation Bill of 28 September, lamenting that the said Bill would result in the abdication and/or alienation of the full control/powers of the Parliament over public finance.

CPA and its Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu in the application filed through Lilanthi De Silva is seeking that certain Clauses of the said Bill are inconsistent with the Constitution and cannot be enacted into law except if approved by the people at a referendum in addition to a two-thirds vote of the whole number of the Members of Parliament.

The title of the said Bill describes it as a Bill “to provide for the service of the financial year 2013; to authorise the raising of loans in or outside Sri Lanka, for the purpose of such service, to make financial provision in respect of certain activities of the Government during that financial year, to enable the payment, by way of advances out of the Consolidated Fund or any other fund or moneys of or at the disposal of the Government, of monies required during that financial year for expenditure on such activities, to provide for the refund of such monies to the Consolidated Fund and to make provision for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

Petitioners bemoan that Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill amount to a clear violation and/or circumvention of Article 148 of the Constitution, which mandates that Parliament shall have full control over public finance.

CPA...

The said Clauses, if enacted, would permit the reallocation of monies by order of the Secretary to the Treasury or by order either of a Deputy Secretary to Treasury or the Director General of the National Budget Department, who may be authorised on that behalf by the Secretary to the Treasury and would thereby remove such monies from the effective control of Parliament.

They state Clause 2(1)(b) reads: “The expenditure of the Government in this Act referred to as the financial year 2013 shall be met from the proceeds of loans which are hereby authorised to be raised, whether in or outside Sri Lanka for and on behalf of the Government, so however that the aggregate of such proceeds does not exceed rupees one thousand two hundred ninety five million.”

They lament that these vague provisions do not impose a specific requirement of Parliament approval for the raising of the loans envisaged and/or permitting of the raising of loans, including foreign loans, subject to a maximum limit of Rs. 1,295 million.

They maintain the said Clause permits and/or facilitates the circumvention and/or violation of Article 148 of the Constitution, which requires that Parliament shall have full control over public finance.

They claim that the Clause 7 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 148 inasmuch as it seeks to vest in the Minister, acting in his discretion, with the approval of the Government the power to withdraw funds released in terms of the First Schedule to the Bill.

They bewail that given the reality that the sovereignty of the people, the rule of law, and the supremacy of the Constitution would be imperilled through the provisions of the said Bill, thus ought not to be permitted to pass validly into law through a simple majority in Parliament alone.