During the parliamentary debate on the Telecom Bill on Tuesday, July 9, 2024, Member of Parliament Charitha Herath emphasised the need for public engagement and expert consultation in the lawmaking process. He cited the Telecommunications Act amendment as an example where expert input from individuals like LIRNEasia Chair Prof. Rohan Samarajiva refined the legislative outcome. “My friend, Professor Rohan Samarajiva, who is well-versed in this subject, has put forward some good suggestions. In the Determination of the Supreme Court regarding the Telecom Bill, his opinions were agreed upon. We are glad about that,” Herath told parliament.
Herath further pointed out that some non-governmental agencies had made significant contributions to the Telecommunications Act amendment. He highlighted that Prof. Samarajiva’s proposals were particularly noteworthy. “That’s how we must work when drafting a law like this. As Parliament, when discussing a very complex subject, we must engage in a consultative process with those who are knowledgeable about the subject matter,” Herath said.
The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka recently ruled that sections of the proposed Telecommunications Amendment Bill, including the controversial Section 59A, are unconstitutional. Section 59A, which was introduced as a new offence, raised concerns about its potential impact on democratic values by imposing stricter penalties for intentionally making phone calls or sending messages to cause public commotion or disrupt public tranquillity.
This provision was met with significant opposition from various experts, including Prof. Rohan Samarajiva. In his newspaper articles and television interviews, Prof. Samarajiva questioned the necessity and vagueness of this provision, particularly in light of the recently passed Online Safety Bill, which already addresses many telecommunications and internet-related crimes. He argued that the proposed section was unnecessarily vague and would place an undue burden on magistrates to determine what constitutes “public commotion.”
The Supreme Court concurred with Prof. Samarajiva’s concerns, ruling that Section 59A was “clearly vague and creating an offence in such vague terms is inconsistent with Article 12(1) which stipulates right to equality of the Constitution.” This ruling aligns with Prof. Samarajiva’s stance that such a provision is not necessary for a technical act like the Telecom Bill.
Supreme Court cites LIRNEasia’s insights in Telecom Bill Determination
Comments are closed.