General Secretary of the SJB Ranjith Madduma Bandara, MP, yesterday said in Parliament that if Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne did not safeguard the democratic rights of the members of the Opposition, a no-faith motion would be moved against the Speaker.
Madduma Bandara said so after Speaker Wickramaratne had rejected the no-faith motion submitted against Deputy Defence Minister Maj. Gen. Aruna Jayasekera. The Speaker claimed that it was not in order and, therefore, couldn’t be accepted in its present form.
Leader of the House and Minister Bimal Ratnayake said it was only wishful thinking that the Opposition would be able to secure the passage of a no-faith motion against the Speaker.
The Speaker stated that the motion had been carefully considered in light of the provisions of the Constitution, the Standing Orders of Parliament, and established parliamentary practices and precedence.
The SJB moved the motion of no-confidence against the Deputy Minister as he served as Security Forces Commander, East, at the time of 2019 Easter Sunday attacks.
“I also studied the traditions and procedures followed in other Commonwealth and democratic legislatures, such as the UK House of Commons, India’s Lok Sabha, and Australia’s House of Representatives in this regard,” he said.
“Under articles 42, 43, and 44 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, collective and individual ministerial responsibilities lie with Cabinet Ministers. A Deputy Minister, though a Member of Parliament, is not a member of the Cabinet and does not bear direct constitutional responsibility to this House in the present context.”
“The Constitution clearly recognises that a Motion of No-Confidence may be brought against the Government as a whole, while the precedent recognises No-Confidence Motions against the Prime Minister, or an individual Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament. However, there is no provision for such a motion against a Deputy Minister,” he stated.
“Therefore, if such a motion is to be accepted today, it would establish an undesirable precedent contrary to constitutional and parliamentary precedents.
“Accordingly, having taken all these facts into consideration, I wish to inform this House that the Motion of No-Confidence against the Deputy Defence Minister is not in order and cannot be accepted in its present form.