Colombo Port City & The Opposition Catastrophe!

Rusiripala Tennakoon

The country like many others is engrossed in a calamitous situation due to the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic affecting the normal life of all citizens. Pandemic has shown clear signs of being continued unabated for some more time. Government with the Health Authorities are engaged with a full focus on its arrest and all the normal activities of the country are reaching a virtual stagnation causing it to cross the thresholds towards a total economic devastation. Naturally in such a situation the rulers have to while giving priority to the control and eradication of the pandemic, give equally serious consideration and attention not only to keep the economy from reaching a breaking point but to take measures for its resuscitation as an essential futuristic measure. Therefore, a pandemic is no reason for any country to forget about all other things. It becomes all the more important to address short term as well as long term plans of action on all other aspects mainly in the economic sphere. There is no justification or sense in the outcry to forget everything else and concentrate only on the pandemic situation.

The opposition political parties and some social groups are embroiled in a battle against the Colombo Port City (CPC) project to outwit the ruling coalition, rationalizing their stunt by attributing motives more appealing to the public faced with a disastrous situation, hence naïve to fall prey to such, instead of taking efforts to address the issues with a positive perception. The clergy mundanely more concerned with the day-to-day human needs and standards, appear to have joined in the campaign to support the opposition view unwittingly. Earlier they were voicing opinions about the dangers the project would pose to the sovereignty of the country alleging it is going to be a colony of the Chinese. It appeared that they have been misinformed by some politically motivated personalities whom the clergy relied on heavily. Now after the Supreme Court determination has dispelled those doubts, they are taking up a different position that the matter should not be rushed. Little are they concerned about the impending highly dangerous situation about the falling and failing economy, and equally less concern about the urgency to take remedial steps even for bringing delayed results. They compare the project in their own imagination with other totally incomparable cases. It is tricky and difficult for a society which is cultured to highly respect the clergy to make up the mind to counter them and point out their erroneous presumptions which we believe is due to two reasons. One is the failure of the government to convince them and give them correct information. The other is they hardly study what is available in black and white. That is why they make frivolous claims such as the agreement should be made public when the bill governing the entire operation is, in its totality gazetted , presented to the SC and debated in Parliament.

In the first day of the debate other than highly emotional outbursts full of misrepresentations and accusations levelled against individuals there were no meaningful suggestions by the opposition.

Those legal eagles who gave deceitful views about the Bill have got the matters aptly cleared and bared (for the public benefit) by the Supreme Court leaving no room for any untrustworthy public comments in the future. One glaring example is the two objections raised citing Article 5 of the Constitution;

Viz. i). “Parliament does not have any legislative power to pass the Bill since the Colombo Port City is not part of the territory of Sri Lanka” contending that Article 5 defines the territory of the Republic of SL and that the Bill seeks to add, to this territory an artificially created area.

ii). It was also submitted that any claim to sovereignty to artificially created areas is governed by Maritime Zones Law and the United Nations Convention Law and as a matter of Sri Lankan Law and International Law, an artificially created area of land cannot constitute sovereign territory. Court Held that The Colombo Port City is part of the territory of Sri Lanka in terms of the law and Parliament has legislative power over the reclaimed area. This determination has dispelled several doubts that the persons who opposed the Bill on those grounds were attempting to make out. If their submission was established, we would have been left with a no-man’s land in our country adjacent to the Colombo City and the main harbor!

A public uproar is afloat about the SC determination, showing many provisions that require amendments to qualify the bill for a passage in parliament only with a simple majority. Some refer to it as a defeat to the government. The SC gave its determination after hearing the submissions made by several counsel on behalf of the petitioners and additional solicitor general who in the course of submissions conceded that amendments will be made to the following clauses at the committee stage; 6(1)(n),7(1),9(4),32, 45, 46(g), 62(5),63,72,74, Schedule 2, item 6 and the General amendment, the reference to “in the national interest and the interest of the advancement of the national economy”, wherever it occurs in the Bill, be amended to read as, “in the national interest or in the advancement of the national economy”

The final determination of the Court is as summarized below,

(i) The provisions of clauses 3(6),30(3) second proviso, 55(2) and 58(1) are inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and could be validly passed only with the special majority provided for in Article 84(2) of the Constitution.

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as follows:

3(6), delete words “provide such concurrence” and substitute therefor the words “communicate its decision”

30(3)delete the words “render such concurrence” and substitute therefor the words“ communicate its decision”

55(2) delete the words, “provide such concurrence” and substitute therefor the words “communicate its decision”

58(1) Delete the words, “render such concurrence” and substitute therefor the words “communicate its decision”

The determination clearly indicated the inconsistencies observed and the amendments needed for the inconsistencies to cease.

(ii) The provisions of clauses, 3(5) proviso, 6(1) (b), 30 (3) first proviso, 71(1) and 74 [interpretation ‘Regulatory Authority”] of the Bill are inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the constitution and could be validly passed only with the special majority provided for in Article 84(2) of the Constitution.