On Tuesday, the chamber that is meant to be the country’s foremost forum for reasoned argument descended into shouting, protest and, at one point, an attempt by Opposition MPs to seize the ceremonial Mace. Such scenes do no credit to anyone, and the Opposition must answer for its own conduct. Yet the more troubling question raised by Tuesday’s disorder is not who reached for the Mace. It is why a motion signed by 44 Members of Parliament, carrying 50 charges against the presiding officer of the legislature, still cannot reach the floor of the House.
The facts are straightforward. The motion was handed to the Secretary-General of Parliament on 9 October and entered in the Order Book on 12 October. Thereafter, the Committee on Parliamentary Business, chaired by the Speaker himself, ruled that the debate could not proceed unless the Opposition amended its allegations, arguing that some were sub judice and that the motion did not conform to Standing Orders. Leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake has since said the Government would find time for a debate before the Budget, provided a revised motion is submitted in proper form. On Tuesday, however, the Deputy Speaker declined to entertain the Opposition’s privilege issues, and the sitting collapsed.
We do not dismiss the Government’s procedural concerns out of hand. Parliament must not prejudice matters before the courts, and Standing Orders exist for good reason. But procedure is meant to serve democracy, not to shield office-holders from scrutiny. If certain charges are genuinely sub judice, the Chair can rule them out of order during the debate itself, as it routinely does. That is very different from holding the entire motion in abeyance. Moreover, there is an awkward conflict at the heart of this process. A committee presided over by the very person accused has had a decisive say on whether the accusations may be heard. The public can hardly be blamed for asking whether a man is being allowed to sit in judgement on his own case.
The Speaker is the third citizen of the Republic. He is the custodian of the rights of every Member, and above all of the minority in the House. His authority rests not on the size of the ruling party’s majority but on the confidence of the whole House in his impartiality. For precisely that reason, a Speaker with nothing to hide should be the first to welcome a debate. A motion that is heard and defeated leaves the Chair stronger. A motion that is smothered leaves a suspicion that no ruling from the Chair can fully dispel.
Recent history offers a lesson. In March 2024, a no-confidence motion against then Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena was debated over three days and defeated by 117 votes to 75. The Government of the day did not hide behind procedure; it allowed the debate and won the vote. The National People’s Power, then in Opposition, was quick to insist in those years that office-holders must be answerable to the people’s representatives. It would be a sad irony if a party that rode to power on promises of transparency and a clean break from the old political culture were now to adopt the very tactics it once condemned.
This raises questions the Government must answer. Does a two-thirds majority confer the right to decide which grievances the Opposition may voice? Is dissent in the House a nuisance to be managed, or a constitutional function to be protected? If the Speaker’s conduct cannot be questioned through the one mechanism Parliament provides for that purpose, what remedy remains for those who believe he has erred? And if the answer is none, how does that differ from the executive-dominated legislatures this country has endured before?
Sri Lanka’s democracy has weathered many storms precisely because certain traditions were respected even when they were inconvenient. The right of the Opposition to be heard is chief among them. A Government confident of its numbers loses nothing by allowing a debate, whereas it loses a great deal of moral authority by preventing one.
The way forward is therefore simple. The Opposition should conduct itself with the dignity the House deserves. The Government, for its part, should honour Minister Rathnayake’s assurance and schedule a full debate before the Budget, leaving any sub judice concerns to be dealt with on the floor rather than in a committee room. Let the charges be aired, let the Speaker answer them and let the House decide. Anything less will invite the charge that the NPP has mistaken a large majority for a licence to silence.