Court urged to rule that referendum is needed to pass the amendment

The group made their representations as the Supreme Court took up a request by President Mahinda Rajapaksa to rule whether the proposed amendment is constitutional.

The request was taken up before a five-member panel chaired by Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranaike.

The Cabinet of ministers in Sri Lanka has approved the proposals to amend the constitution paving the way for a sitting president to contest more than two terms.

Cabinet approval

Secretary General of the largest political party in the ruling coalition Minister Maithreepala Sirisena told journalists in Colombo that a sitting president could contest as many times as he or she so wishes, according to the proposed amendment.

This move to amend the constitution without even allowing for a proper public debate is undemocratic. This is the path towards dictatorship   Sunil Handunnetti, MP

Submitting president's request, the Attorney General (AG) told the court that only two thirds majority in the house is sufficient to legalise the proposed amendment.

The AG was of the view that a referendum is not necessary.

But the lawyers who represented Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), Democratic National Alliance (DNA), Committee for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and other groups argued that a referendum is necessary.

Warning that amendments pave the way for a dictatorial regime, they also said the National Police Commission would be abolished as a result.

Referendum urged

The 17 amendment that paved the way for independent commissions reducing the executive powers of the president is also to be amended, according to the government proposals.

	Opposition says the public service will be more politicised if the move goes ahead

The lawyers for the group also argued that the whole public service would be politicised and provisions for the election commissioner to appoint a competent authority over state media during elections would be abolished as a result.

DNA parliamentarian Sunil Handunnetti told the journalists that the lawyers therefore urged a ruling that a referendum is needed before passing the proposed changes to the constitution.

"This move to amend the constitution without even allowing for a proper public debate is undemocratic. This is the path towards dictatorship," he said.

The opposition and the groups argue that the amendment would eradicate the chances of an independent electoral commission being appointed.

After the hearing, the Supreme Court announced that its confidential ruling will be submitted to the speaker.