icl

9 fee” es a a [cour - Ge orn Be meng ms 7 Ore: _ ead Al fey 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. context of the Constitution. The new Article 46A was declared unconstitutional as it was inconsistent with Articles 86 and 42 of the Constitution. In applying that principle in the present case, the Respondent submitted the Court will look at the language used in Item 1A in respect to the restructure of Article 5(1)(k)(i) and (ii). If there is any ambiguity, the Court will rely on the language used in the additional or new insertion which is Article 5(1)(k)(i) and (ii). The words must be ciear. The Respondent submitted that the words or expressions “; and” at the end of sub- paragraph (i) (k) (1) of Article 5 separated (i) and (ii) (k) (1) of Article 5 of the Constitution. The Respondent says that Parliament has powers to amend Article 5 by expanding or adding new addition. That is the clear wordings in (i) and (ii). The expression (‘; and”) at the end of sub-paragraph (i) indicates a clear intention of the legislature to separate matters in (i) and (ii). The Respondent says the new addition in (i) is separated from (ii). The matters in sub- paragraph (i) will be appropriately dealt by legislations to advance for — ¢ Special benefit, welfare, protection or advancement of females, children and young persons, members of under-privilege groups or inhabitants of less developed areas as an exception to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individuals of equal treatment under the law or administrative action. The matters in sub-paragraph (ii) will be appropriately dealt with by legislations for - e The purpose of economic development zones (EDZ). The new addition of EDZ is an additional exception to the fundamental rights and freedoms of equal treatment under the law or administrative action. The Respondent submitted that the expression ("; and’) indicates the intention of Parliament to treat (k)(i) separately from (k)(ii) because of the exception. The question that comes to my mind in this - Is a provision of a constitutional bill which is ambiguous, unconstitutional? | answer this question in the negative, no. Ambiguity alone does not make a bill unconstitutional. Instead, it triggers a process where Courts try to interpret the law to be constitutional. Only when an ambiguous law cannot be interpreted in a constitutional manner, or when its vagueness is so severe it violates due process, will it be struck down. In the present case, there seems to be an ambiguity between sub-paragraph (i) and sub- paragraph (ii) of (k) (1) of Article 5 of the Constitution because the words or expression (“; and”) at the end of sub-paragraph (i) seems to directly link or connect sub- paragraphs (i) and (ii). Yet, we know that sub-paragraph (i) (k) (1) of Article 5, as an exception, to the right of “equal treatment under the law or administrative action’, authorise for special legislations for special benefit, welfare, protection or advancement mE 10 oe i 5 { Tas (ox qyereme 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. of females, children and young persons, members of under-privilege groups or inhabitants of less developed areas; while sub-paragraph (ii) (k) (1) of Article 5, as another and new exception, to the right of “equal treatment under the law or administrative action” authorise for special laws for the purpose of economic development zones. In essence, sub-paragraph (i) deals with special laws for special category of individuals, while sub-paragraph (ii) deals with a new concept of economic development. The drafting in the Constitution (Ninth) (Amendment) Act no. 7 of 2025 seems to directly connect or link the two exceptions to equal treatment under the law or administrative action under Article 5 (1) (k) of the Constitution, which is apparently ambiguous. To resolve that ambiguity, | accept and agree with the interpretation advanced by the Respondent that Parliament intended to treat sub-paragraph (i) (k) (1) of Article 5 separately from sub-paragraph (ii). Accordingly, the two exceptions in sub- paragraphs (i) and (ii) in Article 5 (1) (k) of the Constitution, should not be interpreted to have a connection or link. Item 4A of the Constitution (Ninth) Amendment Act No. 7 of 2025 is not inconsistent with Article 5 (1) (k) of the Constitution. Is the Bill [Item 1A] inconsistent with Article 16(1) of the Constitution? | answer this question in the negative, no. The RA conceded that the Bill does not appear to infringe the rights protected under