Connect with us

News

Speaker stands firm on ruling, Opposition says he’s undermining constitution

Published

on

Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena told Parliament on Friday thaty he would not revoke his ruling given on Wednesday with regard to the Parliament’s supremacy over the Supreme Court.

He said that he had consulted legal experts in preparing his ruling that the Supreme Court is not empowered to issue orders or judgments of any nature against a resolution already passed by the Parliament.The Speaker said so in response to criticisms and demands from the opposition parties that the ruling would set a wrong precedent.

On August 9, the Speaker gave the ruling after Tourism and Lands Minister Harin Fernando raised a privilege issue on petitions filed against the resolution on domestic debt restructuring that had been approved by Parliament.

Opposition MPs urged the Speaker to withdraw this ruling as it violates standing orders, creates tension between the court and parliament and undermines the constitution.

JVP led NPP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake: “According to standing orders, we can’t question the decisions of the Speaker. However, given that the Speaker’s rulings become a precedent in parliament, we need to have serious discussions about these.

“On August 9 you told parliament that since the parliament has passed a motion on domestic debt restructuring, the court can’t issue orders or judgments of any nature against a resolution already passed by the Parliament.

“The Speaker said that the court was to make a ruling on a case filed against restructuring of EPF funds a few hours later. The Speaker could have made a ruling later, if there was an issue with the court ruling. Also, your ruling is wrong.

“What are motions presented in parliament for? The constitution has named the kind of motions we can have, one is a no confidence motion, the president can also have a motion to seek the opinion of the public on a matter of national importance. These are the two types of motions listed in the constitution.

“When the government presents the budget, we vote on the appropriation bill. This is a law. People have the right to go before the court before it goes to parliament.  The bill comes to parliament through the courts. If parliament passes a motion, and in line with the motion  tax laws,  and financial laws must be amended. The motions therefore fulfill a certain duty.

“I would like to know if the motion to subject EPF funds to domestic debt restructuring, is a law. Is it a draft law? Is it a regulation? Not at all. It was just a motion presented to parliament. What is the standard procedure when we make laws? We come to parliament through the courts.

The court can determine if an act is consistent or inconsistent with the constitution, but it can’t change an act if it is passed in parliament.

“But here it was a resolution, it was not a bill or an act. Tomorrow, a government MP presents a motion saying we must close all courts in the country. All 134 government MPs will approve it. Then what? Can’t the court system examine that? Parliament can impose laws only after the court decides if it’s consistent with the constitution.

“The EPF beneficiaries will suffer because of this. When will this be examined by the court? There are limits to what the parliament can do. If we create a precedent where a government motion, once passed in parliament, can’t be examined by courts, that’s a terrible mistake. So your directive on 09 August sets a bad precedent. What will happen if government starts passing motions that can’t be examined by courts? There is only one thing to do, you must take this directive back. Or you will create a crisis.”

SLFP Kuruengala District MP Dayasiri Jayasekera:  “Article 91 of standing orders state that MPs must not talk about court cases that are before courts. If a MP starts talking about such a case, the Speaker or the presiding MP can ask him or her to sit down. These are things that the Speaker has to do. But you, the person in charge of enforcing the above-mentioned standing order, have violated this provision.

“Moreover, as MP Anura Kumara Dissanayake said, the Speaker can give an order if he or she feels the court has made the wrong call. After you said that the court can’t make a call, the Supreme Court dismissed the cases before it. The judges, probably because they wanted to avoid conflict with the legislature, threw out the cases on EPF.”

SJB Kandy District MP Lakshman Kirielle :  “You (Speaker) points  to a directive given by former Speaker Anura Bandaranaike in your order. However, Bandaranaike made the order after the court gave a verdict. “

Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa: “In recent times, government MPs have raised privilege issues and scared members of independent commissions and the court. They have overlooked directives on holding elections. The president also invited justices to dinner.

“Under the domestic debt restructuring, the workers are suffering when multi-millionaires are untouched. This is a violation of fundamental rights. People have gone before courts and the Speaker has given an order, after an MP raised a privilege issue, undermining the courts.

“You are acting like an agent of the executive. You are interfering with courts. This is a dangerous situation. Separation of powers and a tripartite system is undermined. I urge you to take your order back.”

Freedom People’s Congress (FPC) MP, Prof. G. L. Peiris: “The constitution is clear on this. Parliament passes a motion and that can’t be directly challenge by courts. However, the fundamental rights chapter of the constitution says there should be equality. If the government places the entire burden of domestic debt restructuring on the economically weak and let the rich unaffected, this becomes a problem with equal treatment.

“This is a violation of the constitution. The constitution says that the Supreme Court can hear such cases.  If a directive of parliament causes unequal treatment, the court not only has the right to hear such cases, but has the responsibility to do so. Even the Court of Appeal can look at it.

When an FR case is before the Supreme Court, an MP raises a privilege issue and the Speaker gives a directive within a few hours. Parliament and courts must respect each other, this is the glue that holds the constitution. If you destroy that using privilege issues, you are destroying the foundations of the constitution. You must immediately withdraw your directive.”

Speaker Abeywardane: “I will not take my statement back. I have done everything necessary before making the call.”



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Athapaththu and Dilhari muscle Sri Lanka past Malaysia in mismatch

Published

on

By

Kavisha Dilhari scored a quick unbeaten 44 and then picked up two wickets [Asian Cricket Council]

The quarter-finals of the Asian Games women’s competition, putting top-notch teams against teams without much experience of playing at the highest level, were expected to be mismatches. It took till the third game – Bangladesh vs China was washed out and Thailand gave Pakistan a fright for a proper one-side affair, though, as Sri Lanka bashed 160 after opting to bat, and their bowlers then stopped Malaysia 86 runs short.

Fresh off their appearance in the final of the Women’s T20 Asia Cup, Sri Lanka were always expected to dominate, but it didn’t quite start the way they wanted, with Imesha Dulani run out for another low score in the third over – she hasn’t topped 25 in eight innings since her century against Pakistan on July 31.

Chamari Athapaththu,  however, stitched together an 80-run stand off just 53 balls with Hasini Perera for the second wicket, scoring 56 runs in 27 balls to Perera’s 23 in 26 in the collaboration. After the two batters fell, Kavisha Dilhari played a similar role to Athapaththu in the stand with Harshitha Samarawickrama, scoring 36 in 19 in a stand worth 62 in 37 balls.

Athapaththu top-scored with 63 in 37 balls, while Dilhari’s unbeaten 44 came off just 27 balls. For Malaysia, offspinner Nurin Imanina impressed with 3 for 29 from her four overs, picking up all the wickets to fall to bowlers.

In reply, Malaysia were three down inside the powerplay, with Dilhari picking up two of the wickets to fall on her way to returns of 2 for 4 from three overs. Athapaththu chipped in with two wickets of her own to finish with 2 for 3 from two overs, while Mithali Ayodhya got 2 for 15 from three.

It’s not like there was no resistance from Malaysia: Winifred Duraisingam scored 28, though it took her 47 balls to do it, while Mahirah Izzati Ismail scored 24, another slow effort, taking her 42 balls.

Scores:
Sri Lanka Women  160 for 4 in 20 overs  (Athapaththu 63, HasinMithali Ayodhya 2-15i Perera 23, Kavisha  Dilhari 44*, Harshitha Samarawickrema 25; Nurin Imanina 3-29) beat Malaysia Women 74 for 7 in 20 overs (Winifred Duraisingam 28, Mahirah Izzati Ismail 24; Mithali Ayodhya 2-15, Kavisha Dilhari 2-04, Chamari Athapaththu 2-03, ) by 86 runs

[Cricinfo]

Continue Reading

News

Bid for Basil’s extradition nears final stage: Police

Published

on

Basil Rajapaksa

Govt. is finalising extradition proceedings against Basil to have him stand trial here in respect of several cases

By Norman Palihawadane

The process of having former Minister Basil Rajapaksa extradited from the US to Sri Lanka was being finalised, Police Headquarters sources disclosed yesterday.

The government has formally sought assistance from the United States government to extradite former Minister Basil Rajapaksa, as multiple courts have reissued arrest warrants over his failure to appear before them in connection with two separate criminal cases, a senior police officer told The Island.

The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said matters pertaining to obtaining US government authorities’ assistance to extradite Rajapaksa were now being finalised.

Police headquarters sources said law enforcement agencies were currently evaluating red notices, which request the location and provisional arrest of a person pending formal extradition.

The CID and Police Headquarters earlier initiated steps to seek INTERPOL assistance to secure Rajapaksa’s return to Sri Lanka to face court proceedings relating to the two cases in which arrest warrants have been issued against him.

Rajapaksa is believed to be residing in Los Angeles, United States.

The Matara Chief Magistrate’s Court on July 21, 2026, reissued an arrest warrant for Rajapaksa after he failed to appear before court for the second time in connection with a case involving the alleged purchase of a 1.5-acre coconut estate on Eliyakanda Road in the Brown’s Hill area of Matara.

The case relates to the purchase of the property for Rs. 60 million.

The case was filed by the Police Financial Crimes Investigation Division and names Basil Rajapaksa and several other accused, including Ayoma Galappaththi, identified in court reports as the sister of Rajapaksa’s wife, Tissa Galappaththi, and Muditha Jayakody.

However, officials acknowledged that seeking US assistance would only begin a formal international process and would not automatically result in Rajapaksa’s arrest or return to Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan authorities would need to submit court orders, details of the alleged offences, and other supporting documents through the appropriate diplomatic and judicial channels. Any request would then be considered by the relevant US authorities under American law and applicable legal arrangements.

Sources at the Foreign Ministry said sealed correspondence had been exchanged between Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Legal Department of the US State Department relating to corruption allegations against members of the Rajapaksa family residing in the United States.

The legal foundation for any extradition is the bilateral treaty between Sri Lanka and the United States signed in Washington on September 30, 1999. The treaty applies the principle of dual criminality, meaning authorities must show that the underlying conduct amounts to a crime in both countries. Rajapaksa’s status as a United States citizen would not, on its own, make him immune from a valid request under the treaty’s provisions.

Continue Reading

News

High blood pressure, diabetes lead to about 80% of deaths in Sri Lanka

Published

on

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) account for 80% of all deaths in Sri Lanka, with high blood pressure and diabetes among the leading causes, Secretary to the Ministry of Health and Mass Media, Dr. Anil Jasinghe, said early this week.

Dr. Jasinghe pointed out that the two conditions were interrelated and could lead to a range of serious health complications, with heart attacks being among the most severe consequences.

Dr. Jasinghe made these remarks while attending the commencement of construction of a modern Cardiac Care Complex at the Anuradhapura Teaching Hospital on Wednesday (16).

The Health and Mass Media Ministry Secretary said:

“The main issue is that these two diseases are interconnected and cause a range of complications in a person’s health. Looking at the current situation in Sri Lanka, only around 50% of those suffering from high blood pressure are under effective control. Similarly, only around 25% of diabetic patients are under proper control. As a result, this has now become a major problem in society.

“The most serious complication associated with both these diseases is Myocardial Infarction (MI), or a heart attack. This has also become the

leading complication. So, how do we control this modern epidemic? This is the biggest challenge before us.

“While establishing modern facilities across the country, our health system must also recognize the changes that have taken place in the demographic structure of our population and disease patterns. Accordingly, our health system must be adapted to suit these changing circumstances.

“Under the policies of the government led by the President and the guidance of the Minister of Health, the Ministry of Health and Mass Media is currently implementing a major programme in this regard. Its three main components are Arogya, Cluster Systems and High-End Care Institutions, which need to be developed to suit the requirements of our health system.”

Continue Reading

Trending