BASL urges parties to free MPs for conscience vote on 22A

• Says responsibility for Bill now rests with each individual MP
• Stresses Supreme Court’s Determination limited only to constitutionality, not endorsement of Amendment’s merits
• Flags lack of transparency and proper consultation in Bill’s introduction
• Points to concerns raised by Mahanayakas, Catholic Bishops, UN Special Rapporteur and 40-plus professional bodies
• Asserts many amendments which passed constitutional muster nevertheless had a negative effect on democracy, constitutionalism, independence of judiciary 
• and rule of law

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) yesterday called on all political parties in Parliament to allow MPs to speak and vote on the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill according to their conscience, after the Supreme Court determined that the Bill does not require the approval of the people at a referendum.

The vote will be taken up in Parliament today (24).

The BASL said: “The Supreme Court has now delivered its Determination on the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill and determined that the Bill does not require the approval of the people at a 

referendum.

In terms of Articles 120, 121 and 123 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in relation to the Bill is to determine the constitutional requirements for its enactment, including importantly whether the Bill, or any provision thereof, requires the approval of the People at a Referendum by virtue of Article 83.

The Determination is therefore not a determination as to whether the proposed Amendment is good or bad policy, desirable or undesirable, wise or unwise, or whether Parliament ought to enact it.

This distinction is also evident from Sri Lanka’s previous constitutional amendments. During the 48-year history of the second republican Constitution, there have been many amendments which passed constitutional muster but nevertheless had a negative effect on democracy, constitutionalism, the independence of the judiciary, and the rule of law.

The question that now arises is whether Parliament ought to enact the proposed Amendment. That responsibility rests with Parliament and with each individual MP when they vote on the Bill.

In making that decision, MPs should be mindful of the possible and probable consequences the 22nd Amendment will have on our nation. They should also consider the lack of transparency and a proper consultative process in the introduction of the 22nd Amendment. As representatives of the people they should also consider the concerns that have been expressed in relation to the proposed Amendment by a broad cross-section of society including the Mahanayakss of the Three Nikayas, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Sri Lanka, the Church of Ceylon, the BASL, the Judicial Service Association, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, LAWASIA, the International Association of Judges, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, the French National Bar Council, and more than 40 professional associations and unions, including the Government Medical Officers’ Association and other leading professional bodies.

Accordingly, the BASL calls upon all the political parties in Parliament to allow the MPS to speak and vote on the 22nd Amendment according to their conscience.

The responsibility now lies with MPs, when called upon to vote, to take a principled position according to their conscience giving due consideration to their constitutional responsibility, their representative capacity, and, most importantly, their duty to the sovereign people of Sri Lanka.”