‘How urgent are Urgent Bills?’

One hundred and twenty eight Acts of Parliament have been passed as urgent bills since 1978. This was revealed by former Secretary General of Parliament, Ms Priyani Wijesekera at TISL’s Sambhashana programme, ‘How urgent are Urgent Bills’ held on 29 November at the OPA auditorium.

Pointing out that when one glances at the list of ‘Urgent bills’ enacted since 1978, one wonders how and why many of them have been considered urgent, she referred to some of them. These included Universities Act, Local Authorities Act, Motor Traffic Act, Passports Act, Parliament (Powers & Privileges) Act, Parliamentary Pensions Act, and most of the Constitutional Amendments. There were some like the Nominations Commission Bill which were finally never passed.



She quoted the example of the Consumer Protection Bill presented in 2001 when referred to the Supreme Court as urgent, a citizen challenged it on the ground that there was no need to treat it as urgent. However, the Court held that it was not a matter for them to decide as it was solely the duty of the Cabinet.

“In some years an excessively large amount of Bills have been so passed as to make one wonder what could be so urgent about them. In 1988, 24 Bills and in 1999, 14 Bills were passed at urgent,” she added.

Describing the procedure followed, she said that unlike a regular bill the urgent bill need not be published in the Gazette prior to its presentation in Parliament. “Thus the public is denied notice of the impending legislation and would have no opportunity to challenge it before the Supreme Court. We in Sri Lanka do not have post-enactment review,” she pointed out.

Welcoming the invitees to the programme, TISL Executive Director Wijaya Jayatilaka said that the Sambhashana programme attempts to create a regular platform and space for discussion, debate and consensus building.

Referring to the TISL definition of corruption as “abuse of entrusted power for private gain where the benefits may be monetory or non-monetory,” he said that when we consider the trust we place in our elected leaders there is much to be concerned about. “It is two years since the war ended, the battle guns are quiet. One would feel that it is time we get our national act together,” he said.

He quoted several excerpts from the recently released TISL publication, ‘National Integrity Assessment Sri Lanka 2010′, and reminded of the saying that evil prevails in the world because good people did nothing.

Following former Secretary General, Ms Wijesekera’s analysis of urgent bills, senior attorney J C Weliamuna queried as to how the concept of urgent bills has come to being and indicated the need to understand that in Sri Lanka once a law is passed, no one can question the validity of the law thereafter.



Pointing out “It is the Cabinet. The Constitution says, in the case of a bill which is, in the view of the Cabinet of Ministers, urgent in the national interest. And there is an endorsement to the effect under the hand of the secretary to the Cabinet. Now the cabinet decides that a bill is urgent and there is a seal and a signature. And whether it was really urgent or not is not a matter for the court to examine. In my view, our courts have interpreted differently.”

He said that once the Cabinet decides a bill is urgent, the only follow up is that the Supreme Court has to give its determination – whether it is compatible with the constitution – and the decision has to be conveyed within one day to three days. After that it may even take three years to pass it. He said that the whole process of urgent bills is a mechanism used to prevent a public debate and prevent democracy working – nothing else.

Questioning as to “what the Cabinet is and who is the Cabinet”, he said that in Sri Lanka, the Cabinet is headed by the President and he appoints it. “He could remove the members of the Cabinet overnight with no explanation, and theoretically there can be a one-man or one-woman Cabinet, that is the President of Sri Lanka – it is in our Constitution.”

There are MPs from the Opposition as a well as the government in the Cabinet. There was an MP whose property has been acquired under the recent expropriation law. He said that if that MP crosses over then there would be another urgent bill to change that law!

Another panellist, lawyer and Member of Parliament, M.A. Sumanthiran said that ordinary bills presented in Parliament could be worse than urgent bills referred to the Supreme Court because often items that are unconstitutional are smuggled in as amendments. Ordinary bills could be also dangerous and have only a 7-day window to be challenged.



Citizens must know of that bill once it being gazetted but unless the person is a Member of Parliament, he or she would never get a copy of the bill. He said that many laws have been passed but people unfortunately have not been able to challenge them. The worst, Mr Sumanthiran noted is when amendments are passed at the Committee stage. They are neither gazetted nor contain anything that ordinary citizens have access to. Even new laws can be deviously introduced as the committee stage amendments.

Referring to the issue of urgent bills, he said the discussion brings to focus the legislative process and that these urgent bills are not urgent matters. But these discussions could bring to light other important matters associated with that and then it creates big concern over them. Many constitutional amendments have been made with urgent bills. He referred to another urgent bill called the Rajadurai Amendment which was just to enable one member to cross over.

Professor Milton Rajaratne, Faculty of Management – University of Peradeniya indicated that certain ad-hoc bills passed have serious repercussions on the country’s economy and he branded these laws as ‘aarthika ghathakayo’ (killers of the economy). These laws have led to a loss in business confidence and would eventually destroy the private sector. He said that these actions would lead to a prevention of the expansion of existing enterprises. There would be a reluctance to launch new business, as there are laws now that vest unlimited power in taking over any business on the pretext of under- performance or under-utilization.



The panelists made a serious call for regulations to allow the people to review legislation. There is a constitution of the country, if the constitution is supreme then all laws must be subordinate to that and any inconsistency must be permitted to be challenged at any stage, was their submission.

They agreed that the present constitution has a few flaws and such issues could be sorted out if there was post-enactment review preceded by public debate.



There was a lively discussion after the presentations by the panelists. The audience commented that these valuable presentations and awareness on issues of public importance need to be articulated before a wider, more representative public audience that would reach the four corners of the country – to enable people to learn how democracy is being subverted and the people’s rights violated.