In Sri Lanka, the role and influence of Members of Parliament (MP) in whom powers have been vested to represent the public has remained in a questionable state for a long time. Whether they contribute to uphold democracy, represent the public’s interests and ensure the proper functioning of the State’s affairs, as they are required to, has long been in question. It is no secret that the public faith in many members of Parliament has greatly dwindled. The same concerns were raised in the controversial situation surrounding the Local Government (LG) election. On the one hand, the Government’s failure, or unwillingness to extend the necessary support to conduct the election raises concerns about the extent to which they respect the public’s sovereignty. On the other hand, the fact that the Government appears to have prioritised its own wellbeing over the needs of the public while requesting the taxpayer to tighten their belts further, underlines what the government sees as priority. 

It is in such context that concerns were raised about the roles, powers, and objectives of the three pillars of democracy, i.e. the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. That was, after Attorney-at-Law MP Premanath C. Dolawatte criticised and questioned the impartiality of the interim order issued by the Supreme Court (SC) with regard to releasing funds for the LG election, and went on to claim that the stated interim order breaches Parliamentary privileges. Meanwhile, State Minister Shehan Semasinghe had requested the Deputy Speaker to advise the relevant authorities to refrain from taking any action on the SC’s interim order until the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges concludes its inquiries with regard to the privileges-related concerns raised by MP Dolawatte. The duo came under fire from a number of parties including the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) that viewed their statements as amounting to contempt of Court. 

The two MPs’ conduct in this regard is far from what is expected from MPs. They both have responsibilities as law-makers, while Dolawatta is also a lawyer. They should know that there are more effective and suitable ways of challenging a Court’s decision, if that is necessary, and that attempting to use – or misuse – Parliamentary privileges to cover up their politically-motivated actions against the Judiciary’s discretion is not a good precedent to set. This is not just a matter of MPs believing that they are, or that they should be, exempted from the laws that apply to ordinary citizens. This is a matter of MPs believing that they are above another pillar of democracy. This indicates a rift between the connection the Legislature, and the Judiciary must have as two of the three pillars of democracy. Further, the comments signal a challenge to the Judiciary’s independence.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that this entire debate is about the LG election, which is expected to give the public the opportunity to elect public representatives that represent their interests. Therefore, this is a challenge to democracy in more than one way. In fact, these concerns about the MPs’ role and influence in the context of democracy have intensified over the past few months, because the public have been awaiting an opportunity to re-elect their representatives since the “aragalaya” (the struggle) protests and their enthusiasm has not ebbed away due to the postponement of the LG election.

Sri Lanka has, on several occasions, enforced the law against MPs that have been in contempt of Court, and it should not be any different this time. The two MPs’ actions should not be ignored, and appropriate actions should be taken against them by the Speaker of the House and the Government.