News
Speaker’s ruling raises heat
By Saman Indrajith
Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena informed the House yesterday (24) that the privilege of making special statements on matters of urgent public interest would be available to only one leader of recognised political parties including the leader of the Opposition as per the provisions of the Standing Orders.
MP Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam was the leader of AITC but he could not be permitted to make a statement as the matter was sub judice, the Speaker said.
NPP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake said that they disagreed with the ruling of the Speaker. “We have been in this parliament for a long time and know of instances where the Speakers permitted party leaders to make special statements on issues of national importance and raise questions without any restrictions. I would like to know how you impose this restriction without even discussing with the party leaders.
The government sits on the right. The opposition sits on the left. The speaker’s chair is in the middle. But you are leaning to the right side. Do not take this opportunity away from party leaders. There have been three sitting weeks. So far I have not availed myself of the opportunity to make a special statement. That does not mean I will abandon my right to avail the opportunity. I hope to raise this matter at the next party leaders’ meeting.”
Leader of the House Minister Dinesh Gunawardena said that not all parties in the Opposition had been allowed to make statements under the previous government. “We were not given that opportunity. The then Opposition got all the days for themselves without leaving us any. Besides, the matter with regard to MP Ponnambalam was different. It is not permitted because it is sub judice. MP Dissanayake’s observations are on a different matter.”
TNA MP M. A. Sumanthiran: There is nothing sub judice in this matter. There is nothing before any court pending over the matter. The Speaker has no discretion to make such a ruling.
AITC MP Ponnambalam: Please allow me to make this statement. Either allow me to make the statement or suspend sittings so that we could have a party leaders’ meeting.
Leader of the House Minister Gunawardena: The Speaker has given a ruling. This matter cannot be raised, today. The party leaders meet on Friday and we can discuss the matter there.
Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella: The case in question is over. Someone has misled the Speaker.
SJB MP Harin Fernando: I bring to the notice of the Speaker the Standing Order 27.2. There is no restriction on the number of speeches made by party leaders. There is no reference stipulating the number of speeches.
Leader of the House Minister Gunawardena: The Speaker has given a ruling. If the Opposition is willing to allow him to make a statement then there is no problem. We have no intention of depriving MP Ponnambalam of his right. The party leaders are meeting tomorrow, we can decide it there. Otherwise, we have the option to put it to the House. We are ready. Put it to the House.
Justice Minister Ali Sabry: Standing Order 76.1 has clearly provided for an occasion like this. It says the Speaker in Parliament and the Chair in any committee shall be responsible for the observance of the rules of order in Parliament and Committee respectively and their 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. You as the Speaker have given a ruling. They could bring in a substantive motion to put the matter before the House. Otherwise, you review it at the party leaders’ meeting.
It has been reported quoting family sources that veteran singer Mariazelle Goonetilleke has passed away this morning (10) at the age of 68
She had been receiving treatment at the Kalubowila Teaching Hospital.
The wife of retired Major General Suresh Sallay has lodged a further complaint with the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), alleging that her husband’s fundamental rights continue to be violated as Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officers prevent him from having confidential consultations with his lawyer while he is under detention at the National Hospital.
In a letter addressed to the HRCSL Chairman on Thursday, Mrs. S.B.M.S.B. Sallay has said the latest complaint was filed in relation to an earlier complaint concerning the detention and treatment of her husband.
Full text of the letter: I, Mrs. S.B.M.S.B. Sallay, respectfully write to lodge this further complaint in relation to my earlier complaint bearing reference H RC-HO-1 103-26, concerning the detention and treatment of my husband, Retired Major General Suresh Sallay.
I wish to bring to the attention of the Commission a further serious violation of his fundamental rights that occurred on 08 July 2026 during a consultation between my husband and his Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Asith Siriwardena, while my husband remains under detention and is receiving treatment at the National Hospital.
I am informed by his Counsel that he is presently permitted to consult with my husband only once a week for a period of approximately twenty minutes. During the consultation held on 08 July 2026, officers of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) stationed at the Cardiac Coronary Care Unit of the National Hospital informed Counsel that they had received instructions from higher authorities that my husband should not be permitted to meet with his
legal counsel in private. Consequently, the officers remained present throughout the consultation and refused to permit a confidential lawyer-client meeting.
This conduct constitutes a grave infringement of my husband’s fundamental right to communicate privately and confidentially with his legal counsel. Confidential communication between an accused or detainee and his lawyer is an indispensable safeguard of the right to legal representation, the right to prepare his defence, and the right to a fair trial. The denial of confidential legal consultations undermines these fundamental protections guaranteed under the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the applicable provisions governing persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and client is also a well-recognized principle under international human rights law and forms an essential safeguard against arbitrary detention, coercion, and unfair legal proceedings.
In view of the foregoing, I respectfully request the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka to urgently intervene and take all necessary steps within its statutory mandate to:
1. Ensure that my husband is afforded immediate and unrestricted confidential access to his legal counsel without the presence or supervision of law enforcement officers;
2. Inquire into the instructions allegedly issued by higher authorities requiring CID officers to remain present during lawyer-client consultations;
3. Direct the relevant authorities to cease any practice that interferes with confidential legal consultations; and
4. Take such further action as the Commission considers appropriate to safeguard my husband’s constitutional and human rights.
This complaint is made as a further complaint to Complaint No. H RC-HO-1103-26, and I respectfully request that it be placed on the same file and considered together with my previous complaints.
I respectfully seek the Commission’s urgent intervention in this matter.
The Supreme Court yesterday (9) upheld a Colombo Commercial High Court order directing former Minister Wimal Weerawansa to pay Rs. 1 million in damages to Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) General Secretary Tilvin Silva for violating intellectual property rights.
A three-member Supreme Court bench dismissed in its entirety an appeal filed by Weerawansa challenging the earlier Commercial High Court ruling.
The case was instituted by Silva, who alleged that Weerawansa had violated provisions of the Intellectual Property Act by publishing his book “Neththa Wenuwata Aththa” (“Truth Instead of Lies”), which contained the JVP’s political ideology and official party documents without authorisation.
The Supreme Court also affirmed the order restraining the publication and distribution of the book in its existing form. However, the court ruled that the book could be republished if the 60-page section identified as infringing intellectual property rights was removed.
Dharmaraja and Kingswood set for historic rugby clash on Saturday
Sri Lankan singer Mariazelle Goonetilleke passes away at the age of 68
Tensions erupt in Indian state after 11-year-old raped and murdered
US and Iran trade attacks as Khamenei is buried
Several spells of showers will occur in the Western, Sabaragamuwa and North-western provinces and in Galle, Matara, Kandy and Nuwara-Eliya districts
Canadian PM visits Saudi Arabia to strengthen energy, mining partnerships
‘Dates have the highest sugar content to fight Coronavirus’
Sunday Island 27 December – Headlines
#SundayIsland 17th December – Headlines
Sunday Island – 28th March
Sunday Island Headlines – 21 March
Sunday Island – 21st February – Headlines
-
News6 days agoSingapore-based Buddhist monk marks nearly four decades of humanitarian service
-
News7 days agoFreedom 250: US Embassy celebrates America’s 250th Independence Day through magic of American cinema
-
News16 hours agoHerath warns prospective migrant workers not to get fleeced by racketeers
-
News5 days agoAI concerned over proposed SL military deployment in Haiti
-
Midweek Review3 days agoUnexpected focus on ‘pieces of tin’ worn by military men
-
Latest News4 days agoNyamhuri and Ngarava stun Bangladesh by defending 141
-
Features6 days agoThe NPP’s New Challenge: Balancing Easter Lawfare and Economic Welfare
-
News2 days agoNegombo Prison riot: Ensuring protection of prisoners fundamental responsibility of the state – UN