BASL says ‘it is a matter entirely for the House’

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Prof. Prathiba Mahanamahewa of the Colombo University Law Faculty, yesterday, lambasted the double standards in dealing with lawmakers over contempt of court, which, too, tended to erode public confidence in the parliamentary system.

The Attorney-at-Law said so referring to the sentencing of Gampaha District MP Ranjan Ramanayake (SJB) to four years imprisonment and Jaffna District (TNA) MP M.A. Sumanthiran being allowed to take refuge under parliamentary privileges for also flaying the Supreme Court recently.

Prof. Mahanamahewa said so on ‘The Challenge’ on Jayamaga TV, anchored by Anushi Hakmanage.

The academic asked why the two lawmakers were treated differently over the same offence. He said criticism of the Supreme Court was not acceptable on any grounds or tolerated, under any circumstances.

Warning that the public had realised the double standards in respect of the same offence committed by two different lawmakers, the Mahanamahewa stressed the responsibility on the part of Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to address the issue at hand.

Speaker Abeywardena said the matter was before the party leaders when The Island raised the issue with him. The Speaker said that though he received a complaint from Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, in that regard, the party leaders should address the issue at hand. Lawmaker M.A. Sumanthiran declined to comment.

In a hard hitting letter to Speaker Abeywardena, last week, Justice Minister Rajapakse asked for the appointment of a Special Parliamentary Select Committee to examine MP Sumanthiran’s conduct, in the wake of his strong criticism of the SC, during the debate on the 21st Amendment to the Constitution. Sumanthiran skipped the vote whereas six out of the 10-member TNA parliamentary group, voted for the new law.

However, Saliya Peiris, PC, President of the Bar Association said: “Speeches made by MPs in Parliament are covered by the parliamentary (Powers and Privileges) Act. That is a matter entirely for the Parliament.”

At the onset of the live interview, Prof.Mahananahewa asserted that there were far more important issues to be addressed, than exposing dual citizens in Parliament.

The Attorney-at-Law questioned whether the Parliament. as a result of conduct of its members, caused doubts among the public regarding responsibility and accountability.

The Prof. dealt with the gradual expansion of the parliamentary structure, since independence, with the introduction of the PR (proportional representation) system, in 1989, at the expense of the first-past-the-post system. Acknowledging the current election process was meant to ensure a much wider public representation, Prof. Mahanamahewa asked whether Parliament met the expectations of the electorate.

Referring to the composition of Parliament – 196 elected and 29 appointed members – lawyer Mahanamahewa said that MPs led quite comfortable lives, though the vast majority of the people were struggling to make ends meet. The lawyer briefly discussed the massive eruption of public protests, in March, over the disruption of essential supplies as a result of years of waste, corruption, mismanagement and irregularities blamed on successive governments.

Responding to another query from the interviewer, Prof Mahanamahewa said that in spite of Litro being almost 100 percent owned by the government, those who suffered damages, as a result of gas explosions, weren’t paid compensation.

However, in the case of lawmakers, whatever the reasons, their grievances are addressed promptly, Prof Mahanamahewa said.

Contrary to the much-touted assurances, regarding equality among the population, lawyer Mahanamahewa questioned how restrictions were imposed on the fuel distribution by way of operation of ‘QR’ code. Pointing out that these restrictions applied only to some sections of the population, lawyer Mahanamahewa complained bitterly about lawmakers, some of whom were not even qualified to be tea makers, but were afforded privileged status.

The law professor asked whether Parliament fulfilled its primary obligations, namely financial discipline and enactment of laws. Asserting that Parliament had failed to meet basic aspirations of the public, lawyer Mahanamahewa queried who caused the deterioration of Parliament to such an extent the public now questioned the parliamentary system of governance.