Columns

Minister of Provincial Councils and Local Government Faiszer Musthapha was at the center of the storm caused during QT this week when, instead of answering a question raised by UNP Badulla District MP Chaminda Wijesiri regarding a bank account of the Uva PC being taken over for the personal use of the Chief Minister (CM) of the Province, the Minister went onto berate the backbencher for raising the query.

Quite unexpectedly, two Cabinet Ministers, Kabir Hashim and Ranjith Maddumabandara came to the defense of the backbencher, while Chief Opposition Whip and JVP MP Anura Kumara Dissanayaka as well as UPFA MPs Dinesh Gunawardena and Bandula Gunawardena too spoke in his support, saying MPs are entitled to raise any query in the House, with Ministers bound to reply them. “An MP can raise any query here and we, as Ministers, are bound to reply them, and no one can refuse to answer a question,” said Minister Hashim. MP Dinesh Gunawardena pointed out that queries raised by MPs during Oral QT are done with the consent of the Speaker, with Ministers given adequate time to prepare an answer and give a reply in the House.

In this instance, more disturbing than Minister Musthapha trying to tell the UNP MP what kind of question he should or should not raise in the House, was the allegation by UPFA MP Wimal Weerawansa that the Minister in question had been the legal counsel for the Uva CM, about whose bank account the question was raised, and to which question the Minister did not take kindly.

Minister Musthapha, when confronted with the allegation, admitted he had provided legal advice to the Uva CM in the past, a fact which only came to light because of the rumpus caused by the question raised by MP Wijesiri.

Last year, former Minister of Law and Order, Thilak Marapana had to resign from his ministerial post consequent to his defense of the controversial maritime security firm Avant Garde, when he disclosed he was providing legal advice to the company in question.

But, in many other instances, personal interests that many lawmakers may have in matters that come before the House, go undisclosed, and the public are in the dark as to whether a particular MP is taking up a position during debates because it is in the best interests of the public or, due to a self-severing interest.

Which is why the CoC circulated among MPs as far back as April, needs to be adopted as soon as possible, as it would go a long way to building public confidence in their elected representatives, which has eroded over the years. The CoC requires an MP who has a “personal or specific pecuniary interest (direct or indirect) in a matter being considered by Parliament or, a Committee”, to declare the nature of such an interest and not take part in any debate in the House or, its Committee, before making such a declaration.

It also states that, “A Member shall not engage in public lobbying, paid parliamentary advice or paid advice,” and “shall represent the interest of constituents on an equitable basis, and not on the basis of personal or political affiliations or inducements.”

While the CoC looks good on paper, unless all lawmakers commit themselves to its quick adoption by the House, as well as follow through by putting it into practice, the CoC, like many others will be just another dead letter. A good start would be to bring it before the House as soon as possible and for all MPs across the board, to display to the public that they are truly committed to safeguarding the interests of the public who voted them into high office, and not the interests of only those who ‘support’ them.