SC rules certain clauses of Electricity Amendment Bill unconstitutional

Announcing the Supreme Court’s determination on the Electricity Amendment Bill, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament Dr. Rizvie Salih stated that several clauses in the proposed legislation have been found to be inconsistent with the Constitution.
 
According to the Deputy Speaker, the Supreme Court determined that several clauses would require approval by a special majority in Parliament as well as a public referendum in order to be enacted in the current form.
 
However, the Deputy Speaker clarified that the constitutional inconsistencies would not arise if the relevant clauses are amended in accordance with the Supreme Court’s recommendations outlined in its determination.
 
Dr. Salih made these statements during today’s special parliamentary session.
 
The Deputy Speaker announced that, in accordance with that determination, the Supreme Court has summarized the Constitutionality of the Bill as follows: —
 
- Clause 8(2) shall be amended suitably to provide that the members of the Committee referred to therein shall be liable under the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023.
 
- Clause 13(1)(c) is violative of Article 3 of the Constitution and requires it to be passed by the special majority of Parliament and be approved by the People at a Referendum. However, the said violation shall cease if this Clause is amended as set out in the summary of the Determination of the Supreme Court.
 
- Clause 13(1)(b) is vague and arbitrary as it does not contain any provisions relating to the transfer of employees and their rights as employees during the second stage of unbundling. Therefore, this Clause is violative of Article 12(1) read with Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution, and this Clause shall only be passed by the special majority required under Article 84(2). The said violation shall however cease if this Clause is amended as set out in the summary of the Determination of the Supreme Court.
 
- Clause 13(2) is in violation of Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. The said violation shall however cease if this Clause is amended as set out in the Summary of the Determination of the Supreme Court.
 
Additionally, Deputy Speaker further announced that the Speaker has received the Determinations of the Supreme Court on the Bill titled “Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers (Amendment)” (L.D.-O 19/2025) and the Bill titled “Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers (Amendment)” (L.D.-O 20/2025) which had been challenged in the Supreme Court under Article 121 (1) of the Constitution,
 
The Supreme Court has held that the provisions of the Bills are inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and can only be passed with the special majority required under paragraph (2) of Article 84, the Parliamentary Communications Department said.
 
Further, according to the Supreme Court, the inconsistency will cease if the “National Minimum Wage of Workers (Amendment)” Bill is first passed by a simple majority and certified into law and subsequently the Bills are passed by a simple majority and certified into laws.
 
Meanwhile, the Deputy Speaker also announced that the Speaker received the decision of the Supreme Court in respect of the Bill titled “Companies (Amendment)” which had been challenged in the Supreme Court in terms of Article 121(1) of the Constitution.
 
The Supreme Court has communicated that since the petitioners in S.C. (SD) 19/2025 and S.C. (SD) 20/2025 had opted to withdraw the petitions as they were satisfied with the proposed committee stage amendments, the Court had not made a Determination on the Constitutionality of the Bill.