GL alleges Mahinda Yapa an extension of executive

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Alleging that Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena functioned as an extension of the executive, Prof. G. L. Peiris, MP, yesterday (26), declared that the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB)would move a No-Confidence Motion (NCM) against the SLPPer over the enactment of Online Safety law (ONLINE SAFETY ACT, No. 9 OF 2024), contrary to the Constitution.

The SJB-led Opposition will push for debate and vote on the NCM in the run-up to the forthcoming presidential poll. In terms of the Constitution, the next presidential election will have to be conducted between Sept 17 and Oct 17 this year.

The dissident SLPP lawmaker, who recently aligned himself with the SJB, said that the party and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa initiated the NCM. The former External Affairs Minister said so addressing the media at his Kirula Road residence after signing the NCM.

Prof. Peiris alleged that Speaker Abeywardena’s reckless actions undermined the Constitution as well as the parliamentary Standing Orders. There hadn’t been a previous instance of a Speaker disregarding the Supreme Court’s recommendations in respect of a particular Bill the way the incumbent did with the Online Safety Bill (OSB), Prof. Peiris maintained.

Of 225 MPs, 108 cast their votes in favour of the Bill and 62 voted against it.

“In spite of our efforts to convince the Speaker to adhere to the SC’s recommendations, he simply went ahead with the despicable political strategy pursued by the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa dispensation,” the former minister said, alleging that the Speaker also disregarded the Human Rights Commission’s advice in respect of the OSB.

Referring to a lengthy statement, titled ‘Clarification on ill-informed and baseless reports that the Online Safety Bill was passed in violation of the Supreme Court determination’ issued by the Speaker’s Office on February 06, 2024, Prof. Peiris pointed out that the HRC, in a four-page letter dated February 08, 2024 contradicted that stand of the Speaker.

The HRC pointed out that the SC’s recommendations in Section 13 (Clause 13 of the Bill), Section 16 (Clause 17 of the bill), Section 19 (Clause 21 of the Bill), Section 20 (Clause 22 of the Bill) and Section 27 (Clause 31 of the Bill) hadn’t been accommodated.

The HRC didn’t respond to The Island queries whether the Speaker’s Office responded to HRC Chairman retired Supreme Court Justice L.T.B. Dehideniya’s letter.

Prof. Peiris said that of 57 Sections of the Online Law the SC found fault with 34. In respect of the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill, too, the SC recommended a spate of amendments and controversy surrounding the Broadcasting Authority Bill, the ex-minister said, alleging the government seemed bent on consolidating its position ahead of national elections.

Such laws were meant to protect the incumbent government by discouraging the Opposition, the civil society and the media, Prof. Peiris said, warning the European Union could be compelled to take countermeasures against the country over violation of fundamental rights. That would deliver a deadly blow at a time when the country was struggling to cope up with the developing economic-political-social crisis, the retired top law academic said, reminding the government that Sri Lanka was not out of the woods yet.

Tamil National Alliance (TNA) heavyweight M.A. Sumanthiran, as well as four office-bearers of the United Centenary Front (UCF), moved the SC against the Speaker’s action in purporting to certify the Bill while Parliament stood prorogued is ex facie unconstitutional, illegal, void ab initio and a nullity.

Prof. Peiris said that whatever the differences among various Opposition parties and groups they could take a common stand on the Speaker’s issue.