The Hon. M. Nizam Kariapper, PC

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, I am honoured to be entrusted with delivering the winding-up speech on behalf of the Opposition in Parliament, especially as a newcomer. I pay my sincere gratitude to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and my Leader. I should also say this in Tamil. Even as a new Member to Parliament, I am grateful to the Opposition Leader and my Party Leader for selecting me to deliver the concluding response in today’s debate on behalf of the Opposition.

¶ 02 Hon. Presiding Member, with your leave, I will enter my speech through a point raised by our Leader of the House. During his speech, he suggested—without stating it as an error—that one might be led to think, based on the Supreme Court’s Determination, that Parliament had erred. No, that is not so. I believe there is a significant misunderstanding. Let me first clarify that. The Supreme Court did not require a special two-thirds majority on the basis that this Amending Bill contradicted previous Fundamental Rights judgments. Parliament does not have the power to overrule any judgment of the Supreme Court. A decision of the Supreme Court on any matter is final and binding. However, Parliament has the legislative power to remove the substratum or foundation of a judgment provided it does not transgress other constitutional limitations. The Supreme Court has made that very clear in a special Determination. The Court did not curtail Parliament’s legislative competence in that respect.

¶ 03 Many believe the Court called for a special majority because this Bill was inconsistent with a prior Fundamental Rights judgment. That is not correct. The special majority was required for another reason. I will read it. In page 50 of the Determination of the Supreme Court, it is stated, I quote:

¶ 04 “For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Amending Act was not intended to apply to the nominations already called for and accepted by the time it was certified. The Bill seeks to apply it now.

¶ 05 Therefore, it is irrational and unreasonable and inconsistent with Article 12 (1) of the Constitution.”

¶ 06 Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara clearly set out the background—the Preamble. Please look at the Preamble of the Bill we seek to pass today. It says, in effect, that since Act No. 30 of 2023 came into operation on 17 November 2023, and for the purposes of holding fresh elections to the local authorities set out in the Schedule hereto, provisions are made for the nomination of youth candidates under section 28 of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance at such fresh elections.

¶ 07 That is the purpose. To be frank, what happened then was that former President Ranil Wickremesinghe made a final cut to stop the local authorities election—through then MP Dolawatte. Their attempt was this: if elections were held on the basis of nominations already called, it would contravene Act No. 30 of 2023. But the issue was different. Act No. 30 of 2023 is prospective, not retrospective; it operates for the future, not the past. However, your Special Provisions sought to attach that future law to past nominations. Thus, for nominations called in January 2023—when only women’s representation was mandatory—by seeking to impose a requirement for youth candidates that did not then exist, you made Act No. 30 of 2023 operate retrospectively, affecting candidates and violating Article 12(1). Therefore, a two-thirds special majority was required. In short, the then Prime Minister engineered this “youth candidates” issue deliberately, so that if the Supreme Court compelled holding the postponed election, they could point to this and challenge nominations. Without that background, a two-thirds majority would not be necessary today. I wished to clarify that first.

¶ 08 On timelines, as far as I understand—and please correct me if I am wrong—we are all agreed on this Bill, including the Hon. Speaker. I believe with the agreement of all Members, if this Bill is certified today, the earliest possible date to hold elections would be 11 April—adding approximately 52 days. If not on that date, the Commission can fix any date between 18 April and the last permissible date, 23 July—about three months—providing eight weeks for campaigning and 17 days for nominations. Adding all that, the final date is 23 July. Thus, from 11 April to 23 July, the Election Commission will have the discretion to hold the election.

¶ 09 First, they must call for nominations. When this Bill was brought in November 2024, you yourselves spoke of three months. As our Hon. Ponnambalam said, since you gave those three months, you are estopped from now taking a contrary position. You have been estopped from taking that position.

¶ 10 I have only two minutes left and wish to table these amendments. I respectfully request that these amendments be incorporated. They are consistent with Article 78 of the Constitution. These are not only mine; the Election Commission too proposed certain amendments, including on deposits. Hon. Minister of Justice, these are not casual proposals; they set out clause-by-clause how the text should be amended. With all due responsibility, I am tabling these amendments and giving a copy to the relevant Minister for serious consideration as to how we incorporate them because they are very important.