The Speaker informed the House that the Supreme Court has determined that the Petroleum Products Special Provisions Amendment Bill is inconsistent as a whole with the article 12 (1) of the Constitution.
As per the Supreme Court, the inconsistencies will cease if amendments are made as recommended.
The Bill entitled Petroleum Products (Special Provisions) (Amendment) was challenged in the Supreme Court in terms of Article 121(1) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court determination read,” Clause 3(2) of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and may only be passed by the special majority required under the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 84. The inconsistency will cease if the composition of the Committee is changed to include the following; Secretary to the Ministry in charge of the subject of Economic Policy Development and Secretary to the Ministry in charge of the subject of Investment Promotion.”
It said:“Clause 7 of the Bill is inconsistent with Articles 3 and 4 (c) of the Constitution and may be passed only by the special majority required under the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 84 and approved by the People at a Referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83 of the Constitution.”
“The Bill as a whole is inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution. This inconsistency will cease if the following Clause is added to the Bill; “The Committee appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers shall be deemed to be a Scheduled Institution within the meaning of the Bribery Act, and the provisions of that Act shall be construed accordingly.”
Add new comment