The Parliamentary Opposition’s Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) blamed Speaker of Parliament Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana for allegedly dismantling the Parliamentary Committees on Public Enterprises (COPE) and Public Finance (COPF), by being a ‘puppet’ of the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP).
Speaking during the three-day Parliamentary debate on the motion of no confidence (NCM) against Speaker Abeywardana which continued for the second day yesterday (20), JVP and NPP Leader and Opposition Parliamentarian Anura Kumara Dissanayake claimed that even though the main Parliamentary Opposition Party, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) presented the NCM against Abeywardana, he (the Speaker) permitted the SJB and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa to misuse the Standing Order 27(2) [The Secretary-General of the Parliament shall, upon receipt of any notice in respect of any question, unless the Speaker rules any question out of order, include in the Order Book for answer on a day not earlier than seven clear days from the day on which the notice was given: Provided that, any question relating to a matter of urgent public importance may be asked by the Opposition Leader or a leader of a recognised political party at the conclusion of questions after due notice has been given to the Minister concerned.], and that such should also be included in this motion.
Dissanayake alleged that the Speaker must take the responsibility for tarnishing the reputation of the COPE and COPF where he intentionally hampered the Opposition’s participation to make the SLPP leadership happy. He further claimed that Abeywardana intentionally blocked appointing a Chairperson for the COPF and also turned a blind eye to concerns raised by Opposition MPs regarding the conduct of the former COPE Chairperson, Prof. Ranjith Bandara, during the Sri Lanka Cricket controversy.
Meanwhile, Leader of the House Dr. Susil Premajayantha noted that the House is debating an ‘erroneous’ motion as the content of the NCM contradicts the Constitution and since most of the allegations raised by the Opposition are baseless. He stated that the Speaker has been granted the power to cast his vote at the Constitutional Council (CC) and also noted that CC members do not have the power to abstain from voting like MPs do. Therefore, he said that the Parliament should not waste its time debating such an incorrect motion.
The incumbent Speaker is different from all his predecessors who served during the modern era, as his behaviour resulted in a NCM against a Speaker after three decades, said SJB General Secretary and Opposition MP Ranjith Madduma Bandara.
“In my Parliamentary career, I have seen many Speakers such as Anura Bandaranaike, W.J.M. Lokubandara, Chamal Rajapaksa, and Karu Jayasuriya. No one thought of bringing a NCM against them, as they performed the duties well. We have had 19 Speakers since Independence. NCMs have been brought against four of them. This is the fifth one, and it is after 33 years,” he said.
The motion against the Speaker was handed over to the Deputy Secretary General of the Parliament on 5 March. It had been signed by 44 MPs including Premadasa, Lakshman Kiriella, Prof. G.L. Peiris, Rohini Kumari Wijerathna Kavirathna, Hesha Withanage, Mano Ganesan, Rishad Bathiudeen, President’s Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran, S.M. Marikkar, Madduma Bandara, Thalatha Atukorale, Vijitha Herath, and Chandima Weerakkody. The NCM alleges that the Speaker had ignored the Supreme Court’s recommendations pertaining to nine Sections of the Online Safety Bill. Abeywardana is also accused of allowing the third reading of the said Bill to be passed without a vote and disregarding Kiriella’s call for a division at the Committee Stage.
Further, the Opposition MPs claimed that the Speaker had ‘unconstitutionally and unlawfully’ used his decisive vote to affirm the appointment of Inspector General of Police Deshabandu Tennakoon when the other members of the CC were divided in a tie on the matter. It was reported that four members had voted in favour of the appointment, while two had voted against, and two others had abstained. However, considering the two abstentions as votes cast against, the Speaker had used his vote as the deciding vote to go ahead with the appointment, they allege.