Speaker Karu Jayasuriya’s decision not to recognise the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister and the other 29 Cabinet Ministers is most surprising as the Executive President had informed him in writing that the procedures adopted to pass the No Confidence Motion by a voice vote in Parliament on November 14 was a violation of the Standing Orders and Parliamentary conventions.
President Maithripala Sirisena told the Speaker that he could not accept Proposal No 1 as it was not adopted in accordance with Parliamentary conventions and Standing Orders. He told Speaker Jayasuriya, and the representatives of the political parties of the United National Front and the Tamil National Alliance on Thursday, that, the No Confidence Motion should be taken up in accordance with the Standing Orders and a vote should be taken of the MPs, by name.
Taking a voice vote over something as important as a Motion of No-Confidence against the Prime Minister and the Government is inappropriate and unacceptable because Parliament has installed an electronic system to conduct an absolutely foolproof system that count votes by recording the fingerprints of Members of Parliament. Hence, taking a voice vote on a No Confidence Motion against a Government and passing the same on mere audible and visual observation, is most inappropriate.
The Speaker’s conduct at the time when there is a judicial process regarding Parliament is detrimental to the legal process of the case before the courts. Taking up the appeals filed against the decision to dissolve Parliament, the Supreme Court gave an interim injunction to all concerned parties. When there is an interim injunction it should be applicable on both occasions. It should stop the dissolution of Parliament as well as the convening of Parliament until December 7. If there is any doubt, it is necessary to obtain a clarification from the Attorney General. The Speaker should have asked for the Attorney General’s opinion on the Interim injunction issued by the Supreme Court on November 13.
The procedure for submitting a No-Confidence Motion against the Government and the steps that have to be taken to adopt it are enshrined in the Constitution and the Standing Orders. However, the Speaker acted in disregard of the Constitution, the Standing Orders and Parliamentary tradition.
President Sirisena wrote to Speaker Jayasuriya and explained that he had appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister in accordance with the Constitution. The Constitution says, the President shall appoint a Member of Parliament, who, in his opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament. There is no constitutional requirement or a parliamentary tradition for the Prime Minister or the Government to show the majority of confidence of Parliament.
Although the Speaker has attached a document with the signatures of MPs, it has not been certified by Parliament. The previous date that appeared in the document had been erased and suffixed with the date as November 14, 2018, before sending it to the President.
The President also reminded the Speaker that when he appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister on the request of the United National Party, the political party that Jayasuriya represented, the UNP had only 41 seats in the House.
Parliament has no powers to interpret the Constitutional validity of the Gazette Notifications issued by the President, which would tantamount to usurping the powers of the Supreme Court, which has been entrusted with sole powers to interpret the Constitution.
Since the State Council days, Sri Lanka maintained a strong tradition of impartiality of the Speakers. Accordingly, the Speaker, whichever the political party he represented to enter Parliament, once appointed as Speaker maintained the responsibility to work independently and impartially to safeguard the dignity of the August House and the people’s trust on it.
From the first Speakers, Sir Francis Molamure, F. A. Obeysekera, Sir Waithyalingam Duraisamy, H. S. Ismail, T. B. Subasinghe and others handled Parliament with strict impartiality. The only exception was M. H. Mohamed who played a partisan role during the attempt to bring an impeachment motion against President Ranasinghe Premadasa in 1991.
Denouncing Speaker Karu KJayasuriya’s action, Prime Minister Rajapaksa stressed that it was a black mark to the supremacy of Parliament when the Speaker who earlier acknowledged that the new Prime Minister was appointed in accordance with the Constitution, later decided not to recognise him. He added that no one who respects democracy would agree with the act of Speaker Jayasuriya, who is disregarding the Standing Orders. He alleged that Speaker Jayasuriya is not acting on the Parliamentary agenda, but in accordance with the whims and fancies of the United National Party.
Rajapaksa said, it is not appropriate for the Speaker to dance to the tune of the Opposition by totally disregarding the views expressed by the Government.
President Sirisena, who has the power to appoint a Prime Minister advised the Speaker and representatives of the UNP and the TNA to ensure the peaceful conduct in Parliament and to carry out the duties in accordance with the Constitution and the Standing Orders of Parliament. Now it is for the Speaker and the Members of Parliament to ensure that the August House abides by the advice of the Executive.