Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1135126,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1135126/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 104,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Motion either offends the Constitution, an Act of Parliament or the Standing Orders. The Standing Order provides, and I quote: “(3) If the Speaker is of the opinion that any proposed Motion – (a) is one which infringes, or the debate on which is likely to infringe, any of these Standing Orders; (b) is contrary to the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, without expressly proposing appropriate amendment to the Constitution or the Act of Parliament; The Speaker may direct either that, the Motion is inadmissible, or that notice of it cannot be given without such alteration as the Speaker may approve or that the Motion be referred to the relevant committee of the Assembly, pursuant to Article 114 (2) of the Constitution.” Over the years, I have not shied away from invoking this provision as indeed will be recalled during the debate of this very matter in the past. However, the expected invocation calls for clear and discernible contraventions of the law to avoid misuse. For clarity, the impugned Clauses 2 and 9 of the Bill propose to make advocates, notaries, and other independent legal professionals who are the sole practitioners, partners or employees within professional firms as designated non-financial businesses or professions, required to report suspected money-laundering and related activities to the Financial Reporting Centre. The concern of Hon. Murugara and the other Members challenging the constitutionality of the Bill is that the amendments run short of the age-old legal practice of advocate-client confidentiality; the right to privacy and the right of access to information as guaranteed in the Constitution. However, as Members are aware, the Constitution is very clear on the rights and freedoms that may not be limited under any circumstances. For certainty, Article 25 of the Constitution provides as follows, and I quote: “Despite any provision in this Constitution, the following rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be limited — (a) freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (b) freedom from slavery or servitude; (c) the right to a fair trial; and, (d) the right to an order of habeas corpus.” A close reading of Article 25 of the Constitution, therefore, reveals that the Constitution allows this House to limit any other right or fundamental freedom subject only to the protections outlined by the Constitution. Up to that point, and without interrogating the merits of the proposals, the argument that Clauses 2 and 9 of the Bill, in so far as they allegedly limit the right to privacy and therefore ought to be excluded from consideration by this House, seems implausible, in my view. In outlining for the limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms, the Constitution provides in Article 24 (1) & (2), and I quote: “(1) A right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall not be limited except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including — (a) the nature of the right or fundamental freedom; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}