View from the gallery 

by Saman Indrajith

The new parliament sitting week for this year commenced last Tuesday amid speculation of crossovers. Soon after the commencement of sittings, Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena announced the opinion sent to him by the Attorney General in response to his inquiry on the maximum punishments that could be imposed on unruly MPs. The Attorney General had prescribed a three-month ban on an MP found guilty of two or more offenses of breaching parliamentary privileges in a single charge sheet against them.

Raising a point of order, Chief Opposition Whip and Kandy District SJB MP Lakshman Kiriella stood up and demanded to know from the Speaker why the latter imposed a one-month ban on three MPs found guilty of a brawl in the lobby of the Parliamentary complex. Kiriella said that the Deputy Speaker had recommended a ban of less than one month. “The Attorney General cannot give instructions to the Speaker. There was a recommendation by the Deputy Speaker-led committee to impose a ban of less than one month. If you have no respect for your own deputy speaker, why did you appoint a committee under him,” Kiriella asked.

In response, the Speaker stated that he was not obligated to provide explanations to Kiriella and asked the MP to sit down. Kiriella persisted, demanding to know whether the Speaker had no trust in the Deputy Speaker.

“You can assume anything you want. I am not bound to give you reasons; you should keep that in mind,” Speaker Abeywardena retorted. This response, charged with an arrogant attitude, irked the Opposition and SJB leader Sajith Premadasa, who stood up and called on the Speaker not to speak in that manner. “You said that you are not bound to give explanations to a clarification sought by the Chief Opposition Whip. You should not say so because you hold the post that ensures the protection of the rights of all MPs. If we cannot seek an explanation from you, whom should we ask? You are the trustee of our rights,” Premadasa said.

Speaker Abeywardena stated that he had been given discretionary powers pertaining to matters of discipline in parliament and emphasized the need for respect towards those powers by all.

The high-handed attitude of the Speaker came up again when some SJB MPs were discussing in the lobby the reasons for Badulla District SJB MP Chaminda Wijesiri’s resignation that day. An MP mentioned that Wijesiri, known for his continuous queries during the question sessions, frequently got under the skin of the Speaker. Another MP claimed that Wijesiri had been unfairly treated by the parliamentary privilege committee, suggesting the Speaker’s involvement in the matter. This frustration had also contributed to Wijesiri’s resignation, the MP stated.

SJB MPs praised their leader for standing against the Speaker’s attitude and reminding him that it was his duty to safeguard MPs’ interests. “There is no point expecting this Speaker to pay attention to our interests because he is concerned with his family’s interests,” remarked an SJB MP, highlighting the number of Yapa Abeywardenas employed in the Speaker’s Office, all relatives of Speaker Abeywardena and employed at taxpayer’s expense.

He read the names of some of them from the parliamentary directory’s page on the Speaker’s staff – brother Wasantha Yapa Abeywardena is private secretary, another brother Sarath Yapa Abeywardena is Coordinating Secretary, brother-in-law Premananda Kumasaru is another coordinating secretary, another brother Indunil Yapa Abeywardena is Media Secretary, son Chameera C Yapa Abeywardena is Public Relations Officer.

An MP said that 33 other relatives of the Speaker have been appointed to various positions of parliament staff.

This sentiment was echoed by an MP who cited the recent visit to the Indian parliament by a Lankan parliamentary delegation that included the Speaker’s wife Nelum Lalana Yapa Abeywardana and son Chameera Yapa Abeywardana. “The visit sponsored by the Indian Parliament means they spent Indian taxpayers’ money too,” the MP added.

Meanwhile, the SLPP MPs in parliament expressed satisfaction that their party man, the Speaker, had been vested with higher discretionary powers in imposing bans on MPs. A state minister suggested that the Speaker could emulate the recent Indian example of banning opposition MPs en masse, recalling the suspension of 141 Indian lawmakers since December 14 from the remainder of that country’s parliament’s crucial Winter Session.

During the sitting week, parliament passed several bills, mostly by the Ministry of Justice, to amend existing laws. On Tuesday, the House passed the Office of the National Unity and Reconciliation Bill and the National Hydrographic Bill without a vote. At the end of the second reading debate of the ONUR Bill, Ahila Ilankai Thamil Congress leader Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam called for a division. In the voting held, 48 votes were cast in favor of the Bill and only seven votes were cast against it. Accordingly, the Second Reading of the Bill was passed by a majority of 41 votes.

On Wednesday, the House passed six more Bills: Contempt of a Court, Tribunal, or Institution Bill, Recognition and Enforcement of International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation Bill, Mediation Board (Amendment) Bill, Powers of Attorney (Amendment) Bill, Notaries (Amendment) Bill, and the Prevention of Frauds (Amendment) Bill.

When the six bills were taken up for debate, Kiriella demanded to know the utility of passing the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal, or Institution Bill, citing the government’s disregard for the Supreme Court order to hold elections. In response, Justice Minister Wijayadasa Rajapakshe said that there are numerous provisions in both the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure Code concerning contempt of court, outlining the procedures, punishments, and the handling of charges. However, when it concerns the superior courts—the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court—the power to decide has been granted to the courts, but the specific procedure has not been specified in the law.

“Therefore, there exists a gap in the law, and we aim to fill this gap by introducing this legislation. This issue has been under discussion for an extended period, approximately 15 to 20 years, without reaching a common consensus on what the law should entail. Now, we have presented this Bill before the House for that purpose. This bill was challenged before the Supreme Court by certain parties, and the Supreme Court gave a determination and some guidelines which we will incorporate to the Bill during the committee stage,” he said.

The government presented to the House Anti-Terrorism Bill on Tuesday and Justice Minister Rajapakshe said that the provisions contained in that bill were less severe and harsh than those in the counter terrorism laws in Great Britain.Thursday was allocated for full day adjournment debate on by the Opposition while Friday was allotted for Private Member motions.

Strict regulation of microfinance institutions and leasing companies by Kokila Gunawardene, Educating the public on the nutritious value of traditional, local rice varieties by Buddhika Pathirana, Establishment of Tea small holding system in place of Tea Industry by Velu Kumar and Issuance of a circular outlining the methodology to be followed in school development activities by Sagara Kariyawasam were taken up.