States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives

extraordinary powers to the executive under the models of legal
accommodation. From the perspective of international standards,
this means that the regime envisaged by the PTA falls foul of the
important procedural safeguards of declaration, notiLication, and
periodic approval and oversight. 296
The PTA was enacted in 1979 as a temporary measure, 297 as an
element of the then government’s political and military strategy in
dealing with the early stages of the low intensity insurgency in the
North of the island. The process of its enactment through the
procedure under Article 84 is also noteworthy. Article 84 is a
bizarre provision which permits bills that are inconsistent with
the constitution to be passed by a two‐thirds majority in
Parliament. Article 120 (c) precludes the pre‐enactment
constitutional review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in respect
of the substance of such bills falling within the scope of Article 84.
Thus under these provisions of the constitution, provided the
requirement of a two‐thirds majority is met, it is possible to enact
laws that are inconsistent with any provision of the constitution,
including fundamental rights. As Mark Fernando J. observed in
Weerawansa
 v
 Attorney
 General (2000): “When the PTA Bill was
referred to this court, the court did not have to decide whether or
not any of those provisions constituted reasonable restrictions on
Articles 12 (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) permitted by Article 15 (7) (in
the interests of national security etc), because the court was
informed that it had been decided to pass the Bill with two‐thirds
majority (SC SD No. 7/79, 17.7.79). The PTA was enacted with
296
See Chapter 3, section 3.1 and Chapter 4, sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3,
supra
297
Section 29 of the original enactment expressly provided that it would
be in force only for a period of three years, but this was repealed by the
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Amendment Act No. 10
of 1982
188