Columns

The three-day debate on the no-confidence motion against Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, the fifth in the history of Sri Lanka’s parliament, ended on Thursday evening with exhaustive arguments put forth on not only matters raised in the motion but also a range of other topics related to his conduct.

The motion presented by the opposition was passed with a majority of 42 votes, after 117 voted in favour and 75 against. Thirty-one members were absent, during the vote presided over by Deputy Speaker Ajith Rajapaksa.

The government, however, to ensure that they had sufficient members to defeat the motion, recalled some of their members who had travelled overseas. Among them were Ministers Bandula Gunawardena from the US, Pavithra Wanniaarachchi and Dilum Amunugama from Canada, Harin Fernando from Austria, Manusha Nanayakkara from Israel, and Madhura Vithanage from Russia.

Among the notable absentees was Namal Rajapaksa, who was away in Dubai.

Interestingly, the Speaker came under criticism, both from the opposition and from a section of the government. The main criticism from the government members was that the Speaker favoured the opposition when it came to allocating time during debates.

Though the opposition’s no-confidence motion was mainly focused on the issues connected with the passing of the online safety bill and the manner in which approval was granted by the Constitutional Council for the appointment of Inspector General of Police Deshabandu Tennakoon, the issues raised by members went beyond the motion.

Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella, presenting the motion, told Parliament that the Speaker had failed to uphold the rights of opposition members on several occasions, including the appointment of the Chairman of the Finance Committee. “If the opposition was given the chairman’s position in the Finance Committee, we would have alerted the country when the country was heading for a financial crisis, two years in advance.’

He said there are instances when speakers make mistakes, but this speaker had committed a series of mistakes.

Mr. Kiriella pointed out that, even regarding the approval granted by the Constitutional Council for the appointment of the Inspector General of Police, the Speaker had erred.

M.A. Sumanthiran, seconding the motion, said it was not a happy occasion when they have to support a no-confidence motion against the Speaker as he is the guardian of the privileged powers accorded to the members.

“This is the first time that a determination related to a bill by the Supreme Court has been blatantly violated, unfortunately, by Parliament,” he noted.

He said that although an assurance was given that the relevant amendments proposed by the Supreme Court would be carried, at least six of them were not included when the minister moved the amendments.

He said the Speaker should endorse the bill because it is ‘duly’ passed in Parliament, but the bill was not ‘duly’ passed in Parliament.

Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe said it was a routine no-confidence motion.

He opined that the no-confidence motion contained false allegations.

The Minister cited several clauses, which the motion had claimed had not been amended, actually had been amended. However, there was one line that had not been amended, and the Cabinet had taken remedial measures, he said.

“The opposition had asked the speaker not to endorse the bill. But the question is, can he hold it back,” the minister said.

Commenting on the controversy of two of the members abstaining from voting on the appointment of the Inspector General of Police, Minister Rajapakshe said that the two members had no right to abstain but could have voted against it. “It is the two members who have violated the Constitution. Action should be taken against them,”

He said that the Speaker had no option other than endorsing a bill after a majority had passed it in Parliament.

“It seems the opposition has been put into difficulty by a wrong no confidence motion,” the minister said.

NPP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake said he was of the view that the Speaker does not deserve to hold the post as he was acting in an irresponsible manner. “Even if he survives the no-confidence motion, he will definitely go home in the next election.”

MP S.B. Dissanayake argued that if the members of the Constitutional Council could abstain from voting, no serious decisions could be made by the Council, and the Speaker had taken the correct decision.

MP Premanath C. Dolawatte said that the Speaker always favoured the opposition compared to the government members.

Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena said the no-confidence motion could have been rejected on the grounds that it was not in order as it contained what was essentially internal matters of the Constitutional Council.

He said that all steps should be taken to protect the confidentiality of what takes place in the Constitutional Council.

Soon after the results of the vote were announced, Speaker Abeywardena, making a statement in the House, strongly defended himself over the allegations levelled in the no-confidence motion.

He said the debate, which cost Rs 45 million, was a waste for a country like Sri Lanka.

He said that his position regarding the appointment of the Inspector General of Police was purely taken in view of the national interest. “If the Constitutional Council acts in an indecisive manner, it would pose a risk to the national security.”

The Speaker said he had written to the President that there were no provisions in the Constitution for members to abstain from voting and that, in the event that the votes of those who abstained were considered a vote opposing the IGP’s appointment, his vote should be taken into consideration as the decisive vote.

Regarding the provisions of the Online Safety Bill, he said, he had no powers to accept or reject the proposals in Parliament regarding a bill, and the recordings of the sittings on January 24 will reveal the manner in which he conducted the sessions.

He said he had no provisions to delay signing the Act, once it was passed in Parliament.

The Speaker also responded to other allegations levelled against him during the debate.