Connect with us

News

Speaker reaffirms rejection of no-faith motion against Deputy Minister of Defence

Published

on

Speaker Dr. Jagath

Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne yesterday (25) informed the Houset that he was not in a position to accept the no-confidence motion submitted by the Opposition against Deputy Minister of Defence, Major General (retd.) Aruna Jayasekara by a group of MPs. He claimed parliament procedures did not provide for such a motion.

The motion was signed by the Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and 31 other members representing the opposition.

At the commencement of the House sittings yesterday, Speaker Wickramaratne said he had already announced his decision pertaining to the no-confidence motion and his decision could not be challenged according to Standing Order 76(1).

 The Speaker said he had decided to clarify his decision on the motion again.

Text of the Speaker’s statement: “I wish to make this announcement in furtherance to the announcement made by me on 08.09.2025 on the Motion titled the ‘No-Confidence Motion’, submitted by a group of 32 Members of Parliament in the Opposition including the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, on 12.08.2025 against Major General (retd.) Aruna Jayasekera, MP, Deputy Minister of Defence.

“At the outset, I wish to remind this House the Standing Order 76(1) which states that the Speaker in Parliament shall be responsible for the observance of the rules of order in Parliament and his/her decision upon any point of order shall not be open to appeal and shall not be reviewed by Parliament except upon a substantive motion made after notice.

“However, considering the queries raised in Parliament, I wish to further substantiate the factors highlighted in the previous announcement for ruling the said Motion out of Order.

“The 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka and the Standing Orders of Parliament are silent on moving a No-Confidence Motion against an individual Cabinet Minister, Deputy Minister or any other holder of portfolios. The only existing provision on No-Confidence Motions is the Article 49(2) of the Constitution which provides only to move a No-Confidence Motion against a Government.

“However, No-Confidence Motions have been moved against the Prime Minister, Individual Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers, notwithstanding the said silence in the Constitution and the Standing Orders, thus questioning the legal basis of such precedence.

“It is noted that, in the parliamentary context, the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chairman of Committees, Leader of the House of Parliament, Chief Government Whip, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Opposition Whip are considered Parliamentary office-bearers, and that a substantive Motion of this nature may appropriately be brought against them.

“I wish to emphasize that in the international context, No-Confidence Motions have been allowed only in respect of the Government/ Council of Ministers as a whole (Erskine May, ‘Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament’, 25th Ed. and M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher, ‘Practice and Procedure of Parliament’, 8th Ed.). Further M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher highlight that a Motion of No-Confidence can be moved only against the Council of Ministers as a whole and not against any individual Minister as per the Indian constitutional provisions regarding the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha.

“Similarly, the Articles 42, 43 and 44 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, provides for the collective and individual ministerial responsibility of the Cabinet of Ministers.

“In Sri Lanka at present, Deputy Ministers have been appointed under Article 46(1) of the Constitution to assist the Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers. However, the Ministers of the Cabinet of the present Government acting under Article 46(2) of the Constitution, have not delegated any power or duty pertaining to any subject or function to the Deputy Ministers. Nevertheless, I wish to place on record that the Deputy Ministers function in terms of Standing Order 32(2) on behalf of the Ministers, in compliance of Article 46(1) of the Constitution and read with Article 74 of the Constitution.

“Due to aforesaid reasons, I rule that the Motion is out of order in terms of Standing Order 27(3).

“In the alternate, I wish to note that incidental criticism of conduct of Members of Parliament or particularly to Members in their capacity as office holders in the House of Commons including the Speaker is permitted only through a substantive Motion (Erskine May, ‘Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament’, 25th Ed.), and in the UK practice censure Motions can be tabled criticizing a Government policy or a Minister. M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher (‘Practice and Procedure of Parliament’, 8th Ed.) states that Censure Motions can be moved against the Council of Ministers or an individual Minister or a group of Ministers for their failure to act or not to act or for their policy and may express regret, indignation or surprise of the House at the failure of the Minister or Ministers.

“Accordingly, I wish to inform this House to explore the possibility of submitting a substantive Motion instead of the current Motion in issue, in view of the national importance of the matters relating to the Easter Sunday Attack stated therein and as opined by the Attorney General, the specific facts in the Motion has no direct bearing to the cases pending before Courts.”



News

Ex-SriLankan CEO’s death: Controversy surrounds execution of bail bond

Published

on

Kapila Chandrasena

Prof. Prathibha Mahanamahewa has emphasised the need to examine the circumstances under which the court staff executed the bail bond, and the release process, in respect of the late Kapila Chandrasena, former Chief Executive Officer of SriLankan Airlines.

Chandrasena’s body was found in a house at Pedris Road, Colombo 03.

In case of any doubt regarding bail condition/s or any other matter (insufficient surety, identity issues, suspicious documents and unclear order), the Registrar had to get in touch with the relevant Magistrate, Mahanamahewa said.

Mahanamahewa was responding to The Island query regarding the acceptance of two Muslims as sureties. Had they followed the time-tested procedure, court registry/registrar staff would never have accepted sureties as blood relatives of Chandrasena, Mahanamahewa said, alleging a major defect in the execution of the bail bond.

They were arrested by police and remanded by the Colombo Magistrate’s court, till 13 May, pending further investigations.

Colombo Chief Magistrate Asanga S. Bodharagama, on 5 May, granted to Chandrasena cash bail of Rs. 500,000 and three surety bails of Rs. 10 million each. But soon after Chandrasena received bail, the court was told that two of the Rs. 10 million sureties had been produced, after payment of Rs. 15,000 each, were made to those two individuals to act as guarantors.

The bail application had been submitted by Rienzie Arsecularatne, PC, appearing on behalf of Kapila Chandrasena, when the case was earlier taken up, on 28 April.

Police also arrested an elderly person who arranged for the two persons who hadn’t even seen Chandrasena, even once, to offer themselves as sureties.

As soon as the police revealed the fraudulent manner Chandrasena obtained bail, Chief Magistrate Bodharagama issued an order to arrest and produce him before the court. This order was issued consequent to a request made by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), on the grounds that the defendant had violated bail conditions. The CIABOC wanted Chandrasena held pending the conclusion of the case.

Sources familiar with the execution of bail bond said that the moment the suspects had submitted their National Identity Cards and letters from Grama Sevakas, the court registry/registrar staff should have rejected them. In a such high-profile case, the failure on the part of the lawyers, representing Chandrasena, to check the gsureties’ relationship with Chandrasena, was another glaring shortcoming, sources said, pointing out that after having submitted bail application on 28 April, the defence team should have come prepared to put forward genuine guarantors.

The Island contacted the Bar Association of Sri Lanka for comment on the manner in which the court staff had handled bail for Chandrasena, but there was no response.

Sri Lanka’s former Ambassador to Moscow, accredited to Kiev, Udayanga Weeratunga, said that a thorough investigation should be conducted to ascertain facts about the execution of the bail bond. Asked whether he had been in touch with Chandrasena, Weeratunga said that he spent his first day at Welikada with Chandrasena and Ranjan Ramanayake in one cell. “That happened on 14 February, 2020. I was arrested when I returned to the country, from the UAE, and produced before the then Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake, the incumbent Director General of CIABOC,” Weeratunga said.

Weeratunga said that a couple of months after the change of government in 2024, the US State Department imposed a travel ban on him and Chandrasena and their families over what the US termed as significant corruption.

Weeratunga said that altogether the US designated 14 persons and, of them, two were Sri Lankan, who happened to be him and Chandrasena, accused of corruption in respect of acquisition of MiG 27s from Ukraine and the Airbus deal, during President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure as the President.

SLPP sources said that Chandrasena’s demise shouldn’t prevent proper investigation on his affidavit that claimed pressure brought on him to name Mahinda Rajapaksa as a recipient of the Airbus bribe.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

News

Law applies to all, regardless of power or influence – Prez

Published

on

President Anura

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake emphasised yesterday (12) that the law would be enforced equally and no one was allowed to be above the law.

Addressing the Matale District Coordinating Committee meeting, at the Matale District Secretariat, President Dissanayake said, “Do not be afraid to work, but be afraid to engage in irregularities. Everyone must first be subject to the law and secondly, must fear the law. This applies to everyone, from the President down to the Grama Niladhari.”

“If we are to usher in a new era, we must submit to the rule of law. No one can be above it, he said, adding that previous Presidents had even violated the Constitution with impunity.

The President said that if there were any instances of selective law enforcement, they should be brought to his attention for action. Everyone was required to cooperate, if called upon to make statements in an investigation, he said.

By S.K. Samaranayake

Continue Reading

News

Sri Lanka and Belarus to sign several MoUs

Published

on

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism, Vijitha Herath, is on an official visit to Belarus, from yesterday to Friday (15), on the invitation of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Belarus, Maxim Ryzhenkov.

The text of the Foreign Ministry release: “This visit will mark a milestone in the bilateral partnership as the two countries commemorated the 25th Anniversary of the establishment of Diplomatic Relations last year.

During his visit to Minsk, Minister Herath will call on Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko and will hold bilateral discussions with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus. Minister Herath is also scheduled to meet the Belarus Ministers of Education and Health. Several MoUs and agreements across sectors are envisaged to be signed with the Republic of Belarus during the visit.

In Minsk, Minister Herath will address a business and tourism roundtable, organised by the National Export Centre of Belarus. He is also scheduled to meet Sri Lankan students studying in Belarus.”

Continue Reading

Trending