• Opposition pushes for emergency debate on courts and appointments
• NPP rejects request; Speaker blocks immediate discussion
• Parliament suspended briefly as tensions boil over

A bid by the Opposition to force an emergency Parliamentary debate on alleged judicial shortcomings triggered a tense showdown in the House yesterday (23), with the Government rejecting the request and the Speaker ultimately ruling it out of order.

The dispute centred on a motion submitted under Standing Order (SO) 19(1), which sought an urgent discussion on delays in the administration of justice, judicial appointments and other issues affecting the Judiciary. The standoff escalated into heated exchanges between Government and Opposition MPs, prompting Speaker Dr  Jagath Wickramaratne to suspend proceedings for 10 minutes before later referring the matter to the Committee on Parliamentary Business.

A letter signed by 20 Opposition MPs requesting the emergency debate was handed over to the Speaker, arguing that Parliament should intervene immediately to address what they described as structural issues within the judicial sector and identify appropriate solutions.

Raising the matter in the House, Opposition MP and attorney Ajith P Perera said the motion had been submitted earlier in the day with the backing of 20 MPs and dealt with matters of urgent public importance.

“At present, there are serious issues relating to delays in the administration of justice and several matters connected to it. We believe that this deep and important issue must be discussed urgently,” he said.

Perera requested that Parliament allocate two hours for the discussion after the day's scheduled debate, stressing that such a move would not disrupt Government business.

“It will not interfere with the Government’s agenda. Judicial power belongs to the people and is exercised through Parliament and the courts under Article 4(c) of the Constitution. Therefore, issues relating to the Judiciary, including the appointment of judges, the efficiency of the court system and delays in legal proceedings, are matters that Parliament should be able to discuss,” he added.

Responding on behalf of the Government, Leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake said the proposal had only been received that morning and argued that many of the matters raised by the Opposition did not fall solely within Parliament’s authority.

“Decisions regarding case delays and judicial appointments are not matters determined entirely by Parliament, and in some instances not even by the Justice Ministry. Certain functions are handled by the Judicial Service Commission, while others come under the Constitutional Council,” he said.

Rathnayake maintained that the Government did not consider the issue sufficiently urgent to interrupt the day’s Parliamentary business.

“We don’t see this as a matter requiring special priority at this stage. Therefore, we don’t agree to the request,” he said.

He also criticised the Opposition’s interpretation of Parliament’s authority over judicial matters, warning against a return to past practices.

“In the past, the argument that judicial power rests with Parliament was used to bring Supreme Court judges before Parliamentary Select Committees. Those were extremely serious developments. We are a Government with a two-thirds majority. One must consider the implications if we were to adopt the same thinking. We therefore seek a vote on this matter and request that the Speaker make a determination thereafter,” he said.

Opposition MP and attorney Dayasiri Jayasekara objected to the Government’s stance, arguing that the Standing Orders did not require the approval of the House Leader for such a motion to be entertained.

“We are making this request in accordance with the Standing Orders. It is clear that approval from the House Leader is not required,” he said.

Jayasekara went on to accuse the Government of undermining the Constitution by failing to fill judicial vacancies.

“The President is violating the Constitution by not appointing judges. Eight judges have not yet been appointed. In some instances, benches are being fixed to hear cases. Lawyers are not being given opportunities to speak. The Government is also attempting to extend the terms of certain judges. These are the kinds of pressures being exerted on the Judiciary. If we can’t discuss these matters here, where can they be discussed?” he asked.

He further claimed that Government members lacked the moral authority to lecture others on judicial independence.

“These are the same people who set fire to courts in the past,” he alleged.

Rathnayake responded by saying that where disputes arise concerning Parliamentary procedure, the Speaker had the authority to make a determination.

“If there is a disagreement regarding the conduct of business in this House, Parliament can make a determination. We therefore seek a vote. This Parliament has had many such experiences,” he said.

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa also backed the request, arguing that the issues raised had a direct bearing on the administration of justice, democratic governance, the rule of law and judicial independence.

“The motion we have presented today relates to the administration of justice, the rule of law, the need to safeguard an independent Judiciary, the appointment of eight judges who remain unappointed, and proposals to extend the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges by two years. These developments are dealing a deadly blow to the functioning of the judicial system,” he said.

As tensions escalated in the Chamber, the Speaker ruled that Government business scheduled for the day would take precedence.

“The business of the Government has priority today. Therefore, this request is out of order. Based on technical advice received from the Parliamentary Secretariat, I rule that the matter is procedurally irregular,” Dr  Wickramaratne said.

Several Opposition MPs attempted to raise points of order but were not given an opportunity to do so.

Chief Government Whip Dr  Nalinda Jayatissa then suggested that a vote could be taken to determine the position of the House, while Rathnayake noted that SO 146 provided the Speaker with the authority to proceed accordingly.

Premadasa again pointed out that the motion had been submitted in compliance with SO 19(1) and carried the support of 20 MPs.

Parliamentary proceedings were subsequently suspended for 10 minutes amid the heated exchanges.

When the House reconvened, the Speaker announced that the Opposition’s motion would be referred to the next meeting of the Committee on Parliamentary Business for consideration and the allocation of a suitable date for discussion.