Government says no-confidence motion against Speaker will not be debated on November 3

Leader of the House and Minister Bimal Rathnayake says the no-confidence motion submitted by the Opposition against the Speaker will not be taken up for debate on November 3 because it was not amended and resubmitted in line with parliamentary Standing Orders by the October 28 deadline.

Rathnayake said November 3 had instead been allocated for an adjournment debate. He added that the Opposition had been informed at the Committee on Parliamentary Business that the motion could still be debated before the Budget period if it was resubmitted in accordance with Standing Orders.

He said the Opposition had been asked to revise the motion so that it conformed to parliamentary procedure and previous practice governing no-confidence motions against Speakers.

Rathnayake said Standing Orders 83 and 91 were relevant to motions concerning senior office-holders and matters that may also be before the courts. He added that the Committee on Parliamentary Business was responsible for deciding whether such matters could be included in the parliamentary programme.

Since the Opposition had not submitted an amended version by the deadline, Rathnayake said the programme for November 3 had been changed and the day would now be devoted to an adjournment debate.

However, Samagi Jana Balawegaya MP Ajith P. Perera rejected the Government’s position, arguing that the no-confidence motion could not be removed once it had been included in the Order Book.

Perera said the motion, containing 50 allegations against the Speaker, had been submitted to Parliament on October 12 and was subsequently accepted for publication in the Order Book after the Secretary-General of Parliament was satisfied with the procedural requirements.

He argued that a motion already placed in the Order Book could only be withdrawn if all its signatories agreed to do so or if Parliament passed a separate motion removing it.

Perera said the allegations included corruption, procedural violations, abuse of authority and conduct contrary to parliamentary traditions, the Standing Orders and the Constitution.

He also claimed that the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption was examining some of the matters raised and that an internal parliamentary inquiry had found evidence relating to about 30 of the 50 allegations.

Perera further said Parliament should seek the Attorney General’s advice if there was uncertainty over the legal or procedural position, noting that such advice had been obtained on parliamentary matters in the past.