Far removed from the sturm und drang (German for storm and stress) of the environs outside the immediate vicinity of that unholy sanctum on the Diyawanna, signified by the latest feat of town and country planning and related urban development in the form of the “HoruGoGama” (Thieves Go Home Village), there is calm in the House of the Speaker, barricaded as it is against the people, whose sovereign legislative power it wields.
This calm belies terror. This terror belies a plot against democracy. Leading this plot against democracy is the Matara District Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna Government MP and incumbent Speaker of Parliament Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, who for reasons unbeknownst to Thomas Erskine May, that British doyen of Parliamentary authority, procedure, and convention, looks to be proactively assisting the Government.
Exhibit A: Last Thursday (5), Speaker Abeywardena refused to immediately accept the no-confidence motion against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa – submitted by the main Parliamentary Opposition, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), who also submitted a no-confidence motion against the Government – and enter it into the Order Book of the Parliament. The reason given by him was that he needed to consult the Attorney General (AG) on its legality in prior; the anti-Government no-confidence motion was to however be placed in the Order Book the following day.
According to Article 42 of the Constitution: “The President shall be responsible to the Parliament for the due exercise, performance, and discharge of his/her powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any written law.”
The Parliamentary Standing Order 83(1) states: “The personal conduct of the President, or other persons engaged in the administration of justice, shall not be raised, except upon a substantive motion.”
Opposition MP M.A. Sumanthiran PC had this to say: “However, they seem intent on delaying the no-confidence motion against the President. The fact that there is another remedy, namely impeachment [per Article 38(2)], does not mean that the Parliament cannot pass a motion expressing its lack of confidence in the President. One does not need legal advice to know this!!”
The value of a no-confidence motion against the President is symbolic, as opposed to legal in the case of an impeachment resolution against him.
True, it is the Speaker’s job to know this area of law, but if he is a layman to the law or is lacking in acumen or (and this the present Speaker most certainly does not) is not possessed of the stuff of “I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me” defiance exhibited by the late 16-17th Century Speaker of the House of Commons of the UK Parliament, William Lenthall, in response to King Charles the First, who barged into the House with 400 armed men and sought to seize five Members whom he accused of treason, and hence has any doubt that requires clearing from a relevant authority with the necessary expertise, he can make haste, as after all, the Parliament complex has a separate office for the AG and AG’s Department representatives, for use per the requirement.
Exhibit B: The Government, with none other than Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa stating so, has informed that a 21st Amendment to the Constitution that purportedly seeks to entrust more powers to the Parliament and strengthen democracy, and is based on the effective particulars and positive features of the 19th and 20th Amendments to the Constitution, but does not necessarily seek to repeal the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, and restore an enhanced 19th Amendment to the Constitution, will be introduced. A Cabinet Sub-Committee, we are told, is to guide the Legal Draftsman’s Department to draft a Bill for the purpose. Per a recent Cabinet of Ministers’ decision, the Premier is to then propose the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee to prepare another draft Bill based on the Cabinet’s/Legal Draftsman’s Bill, and the Bills for the same put forward by others. As the President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, Saliya Pieris PC noted: “This can be done very quickly, even in a month, if there is political will.” Taking note of the urgency of the matter, the Speaker can declare the entire House a Constitutional assembly; yet, he has not. He has instead satisfied himself with, according to him, speeding up the process by stating that such would be sent to the AG by the Cabinet.
Exhibit C: Since the crises unfolded, Parliament, which is the sole and final arbiter of public finance, has made not an iota of a contribution towards easing the economic burden on the public, despite the never-ending prattle and arguments of endless debates and specially convened meetings of Party Leaders. It has only succeeded in the farcical reappointment of a Deputy Speaker from the Government camp, after the individual in question twice attempted to resign and was only successful upon the second attempt, and who has now resigned again, and extracting some home truths from Finance Minister M.U.M. Ali Sabry PC. On Friday, the Speaker, in all his wisdom, saw it fit to adjourn the Parliament until 17 May despite opposition. Cometh the hour, leaveth the power wielders.
Delays in acting on resolving the political and economic crises, expedited in part due to the Speaker permitting stalling, time-buying, and diversionary tactics on the part of the Government, have the effect of political filibustering that is pro-Government and anti-people. The importance of the Speaker understanding that such delays also add up to the further waste of public monies, and therefore, controlling and managing the House accordingly, while being sensitive to the people’s plight, cannot be overstressed.
On the role of the Speaker, Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice or A Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of the Parliament, tells us that “the Speaker is also expected to lay aside any party or group affiliation on appointment and to refrain from political activity”.
The late Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had a more profoundly expansive and idealistic view of the Speaker’s office: “The Speaker represents the House. He/she represents the dignity and freedom of the House, and because the House represents the nation, in a particular way, the Speaker becomes the symbol of the nation's freedom and liberty. Therefore, it is right that that should be an honoured position, a free position, and should be occupied always by persons of outstanding ability and impartiality.”
The Speaker is not and no longer has to be the de facto representative of the Head of the Executive branch of the Government, the President. Neither should the Speaker’s role be hijacked by the President or the Ruling Party to do their bidding, or be employed in the cause of hoarding power, or satiating their agenda of power lust.
How then can we make the Speaker’s office independent, fair, objective, impartial, neutral, unbiased, non-partisan, apolitical, proprietous, decisive, and transparent? What are the checks and balances on the Speaker’s role, powers (including discretionary ones) and duties, and most importantly, conduct?
One suggestion we make, to be given legal effect, is for the MP elected as the Speaker to immediately lose his/her membership and positions within the party from which he/she was elected to Parliament from, for the duration of the Parliamentary term and also from political activity for a period thereafter, akin also to the manner in which civic disabilities including restrictions against contesting and campaigning are imposed on MPs convicted of certain offences.
The sun has long set on our democracy. This, here, is a call for the preservation of its vestiges. In our Constitutional order of hierarchy, the Speaker stands after the President and the Prime Minister, including to temporarily hold the office of the President under circumstances that dictate such, even before the Chief Justice. However, the current Speaker’s aptitude and independence is presently in question. This does not augur well for the collective voice of Parliamentary democracy or for the high office of the guardian of Parliamentary democracy.
“There is no point in such a Parliament. The public’s voice is not represented here. Because of what this Parliament is playing at, the public will one day set fire to the Parliament. There are no solutions to the people’s problems from this Parliament,” claimed SJB MP Mujibur Rahuman in Parliament, in the aftermath of the vote on the Deputy Speaker.
The country's confidence in the Speaker’s demeanour in Parliament is rightly coming under fire for falling beyond the pale of being beyond reproach due to the present Speaker’s breach of the façade of impartiality. Hence the Speaker should, until the lack of necessary legal reforms or judicial review hamstring the said office, heed the Indian Supreme Court’s advice in a case and keep his eyes and ears shut to political machinations and resist the temptation to jump into the political thicket, while keeping the words of Thomas Erskine May and Jawaharlal Nehru foremost in his mind.The Speaker of a decrepit House
09 May 2022
The Speaker of a decrepit House
09 May 2022
Far removed from the sturm und drang (German for storm and stress) of the environs outside the immediate vicinity of that unholy sanctum on the Diyawanna, signified by the latest feat of town and country planning and related urban development in the form of the “HoruGoGama” (Thieves Go Home Village), there is calm in the House of the Speaker, barricaded as it is against the people, whose sovereign legislative power it wields.
This calm belies terror. This terror belies a plot against democracy. Leading this plot against democracy is the Matara District Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna Government MP and incumbent Speaker of Parliament Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, who for reasons unbeknownst to Thomas Erskine May, that British doyen of Parliamentary authority, procedure, and convention, looks to be proactively assisting the Government.
Exhibit A: Last Thursday (5), Speaker Abeywardena refused to immediately accept the no-confidence motion against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa – submitted by the main Parliamentary Opposition, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), who also submitted a no-confidence motion against the Government – and enter it into the Order Book of the Parliament. The reason given by him was that he needed to consult the Attorney General (AG) on its legality in prior; the anti-Government no-confidence motion was to however be placed in the Order Book the following day.
According to Article 42 of the Constitution: “The President shall be responsible to the Parliament for the due exercise, performance, and discharge of his/her powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any written law.”
The Parliamentary Standing Order 83(1) states: “The personal conduct of the President, or other persons engaged in the administration of justice, shall not be raised, except upon a substantive motion.”
Opposition MP M.A. Sumanthiran PC had this to say: “However, they seem intent on delaying the no-confidence motion against the President. The fact that there is another remedy, namely impeachment [per Article 38(2)], does not mean that the Parliament cannot pass a motion expressing its lack of confidence in the President. One does not need legal advice to know this!!”
The value of a no-confidence motion against the President is symbolic, as opposed to legal in the case of an impeachment resolution against him.
True, it is the Speaker’s job to know this area of law, but if he is a layman to the law or is lacking in acumen or (and this the present Speaker most certainly does not) is not possessed of the stuff of “I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me” defiance exhibited by the late 16-17th Century Speaker of the House of Commons of the UK Parliament, William Lenthall, in response to King Charles the First, who barged into the House with 400 armed men and sought to seize five Members whom he accused of treason, and hence has any doubt that requires clearing from a relevant authority with the necessary expertise, he can make haste, as after all, the Parliament complex has a separate office for the AG and AG’s Department representatives, for use per the requirement.
Exhibit B: The Government, with none other than Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa stating so, has informed that a 21st Amendment to the Constitution that purportedly seeks to entrust more powers to the Parliament and strengthen democracy, and is based on the effective particulars and positive features of the 19th and 20th Amendments to the Constitution, but does not necessarily seek to repeal the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, and restore an enhanced 19th Amendment to the Constitution, will be introduced. A Cabinet Sub-Committee, we are told, is to guide the Legal Draftsman’s Department to draft a Bill for the purpose. Per a recent Cabinet of Ministers’ decision, the Premier is to then propose the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee to prepare another draft Bill based on the Cabinet’s/Legal Draftsman’s Bill, and the Bills for the same put forward by others. As the President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, Saliya Pieris PC noted: “This can be done very quickly, even in a month, if there is political will.” Taking note of the urgency of the matter, the Speaker can declare the entire House a Constitutional assembly; yet, he has not. He has instead satisfied himself with, according to him, speeding up the process by stating that such would be sent to the AG by the Cabinet.
Exhibit C: Since the crises unfolded, Parliament, which is the sole and final arbiter of public finance, has made not an iota of a contribution towards easing the economic burden on the public, despite the never-ending prattle and arguments of endless debates and specially convened meetings of Party Leaders. It has only succeeded in the farcical reappointment of a Deputy Speaker from the Government camp, after the individual in question twice attempted to resign and was only successful upon the second attempt, and who has now resigned again, and extracting some home truths from Finance Minister M.U.M. Ali Sabry PC. On Friday, the Speaker, in all his wisdom, saw it fit to adjourn the Parliament until 17 May despite opposition. Cometh the hour, leaveth the power wielders.
Delays in acting on resolving the political and economic crises, expedited in part due to the Speaker permitting stalling, time-buying, and diversionary tactics on the part of the Government, have the effect of political filibustering that is pro-Government and anti-people. The importance of the Speaker understanding that such delays also add up to the further waste of public monies, and therefore, controlling and managing the House accordingly, while being sensitive to the people’s plight, cannot be overstressed.
On the role of the Speaker, Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice or A Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of the Parliament, tells us that “the Speaker is also expected to lay aside any party or group affiliation on appointment and to refrain from political activity”.
The late Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had a more profoundly expansive and idealistic view of the Speaker’s office: “The Speaker represents the House. He/she represents the dignity and freedom of the House, and because the House represents the nation, in a particular way, the Speaker becomes the symbol of the nation's freedom and liberty. Therefore, it is right that that should be an honoured position, a free position, and should be occupied always by persons of outstanding ability and impartiality.”
The Speaker is not and no longer has to be the de facto representative of the Head of the Executive branch of the Government, the President. Neither should the Speaker’s role be hijacked by the President or the Ruling Party to do their bidding, or be employed in the cause of hoarding power, or satiating their agenda of power lust.
How then can we make the Speaker’s office independent, fair, objective, impartial, neutral, unbiased, non-partisan, apolitical, proprietous, decisive, and transparent? What are the checks and balances on the Speaker’s role, powers (including discretionary ones) and duties, and most importantly, conduct?
One suggestion we make, to be given legal effect, is for the MP elected as the Speaker to immediately lose his/her membership and positions within the party from which he/she was elected to Parliament from, for the duration of the Parliamentary term and also from political activity for a period thereafter, akin also to the manner in which civic disabilities including restrictions against contesting and campaigning are imposed on MPs convicted of certain offences.
The sun has long set on our democracy. This, here, is a call for the preservation of its vestiges. In our Constitutional order of hierarchy, the Speaker stands after the President and the Prime Minister, including to temporarily hold the office of the President under circumstances that dictate such, even before the Chief Justice. However, the current Speaker’s aptitude and independence is presently in question. This does not augur well for the collective voice of Parliamentary democracy or for the high office of the guardian of Parliamentary democracy.
“There is no point in such a Parliament. The public’s voice is not represented here. Because of what this Parliament is playing at, the public will one day set fire to the Parliament. There are no solutions to the people’s problems from this Parliament,” claimed SJB MP Mujibur Rahuman in Parliament, in the aftermath of the vote on the Deputy Speaker.
The country's confidence in the Speaker’s demeanour in Parliament is rightly coming under fire for falling beyond the pale of being beyond reproach due to the present Speaker’s breach of the façade of impartiality. Hence the Speaker should, until the lack of necessary legal reforms or judicial review hamstring the said office, heed the Indian Supreme Court’s advice in a case and keep his eyes and ears shut to political machinations and resist the temptation to jump into the political thicket, while keeping the words of Thomas Erskine May and Jawaharlal Nehru foremost in his mind.Kapruka
Discover Kapruka, the leading online shopping platform in Sri Lanka, where you can conveniently send Gifts and Flowers to your loved ones for any event. Explore a wide range of popular Shopping Categories on Kapruka, including Toys, Groceries, Electronics, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Automobile, Mother and Baby Products, Clothing, and Fashion. Additionally, Kapruka offers unique online services like Money Remittance, Astrology, Medicine Delivery, and access to over 700 Top Brands. Also If you’re interested in selling with Kapruka, Partner Central by Kapruka is the best solution to start with. Moreover, through Kapruka Global Shop, you can also enjoy the convenience of purchasing products from renowned platforms like Amazon and eBay and have them delivered to Sri Lanka.Send love straight to their heart this Valentine's with our thoughtful gifts!
Discover Kapruka, the leading online shopping platform in Sri Lanka, where you can conveniently send Gifts and Flowers to your loved ones for any event. Explore a wide range of popular Shopping Categories on Kapruka, including Toys, Groceries, Electronics, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Automobile, Mother and Baby Products, Clothing, and Fashion. Additionally, Kapruka offers unique online services like Money Remittance, Astrology, Medicine Delivery, and access to over 700 Top Brands. Also If you’re interested in selling with Kapruka, Partner Central by Kapruka is the best solution to start with. Moreover, through Kapruka Global Shop, you can also enjoy the convenience of purchasing products from renowned platforms like Amazon and eBay and have them delivered to Sri Lanka.Send love straight to their heart this Valentine's with our thoughtful gifts!