News
Speaker reaffirms rejection of no-faith motion against Deputy Minister of Defence
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
Navy seizes an Indian fishing boat poaching in northern waters
During an operation conducted in the dark hours of 27 Dec 25, the Sri Lanka Navy seized an Indian fishing boat and apprehended 03 Indian fishermen while they were poaching in Sri Lankan waters, south of the Delft Island in Jaffna.
The seized boat and Indian fishermen (03) were brought to the Kreinagar Jetty and were handed over to the Fisheries Inspector of Jaffna for onward legal proceedings.
News
Delay in govt. response to UK sanctions on ex-military chiefs, and others causes concern
Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda said that he is still waiting for the government’s response to the UK sanctions imposed on three ex-military officers, including him, and a former member of the LTTE.
The former Navy Chief said so in response to The Island query whether he was aware of the position taken by a three-member ministerial committee, consisting of Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath, Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara and Deputy Defence Minister Maj. Gen (retd) Aruna Jayasekera.
The government named the committee in the wake of the UK declaration of travel bans and asset freezes in respect of Karannagoda, General Shavendra Silva, General Jagath Jayasuriya and Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan, also known as Karuna. Maj. Gen. Jayasekera said that they inquired into the issue at hand.
Karannnagoda said that he would like to know the government’s recommendations if the ministerial committee briefed the Cabinet as per a decision taken by the Cabinet of Ministers. Karannagoda said that the issue should have been taken at the highest level as various interested parties continue to humiliate the war-winning military by targeting selected individuals.
Other sources, familiar with the issues at hand, told The Island that the government was yet to announce its stand.
Sources pointed out that the Opposition has been silent on what they called a matter of utmost national importance.
Cabinet spokesman Dr. Nalinda Jayathissa is on record as having described the UK move as a unilateral move and that committee was formed to examine the developments and recommend appropriate measures to the Cabinet.
Foreign Minister Herath told The Island the government was not successful in getting the British to withdraw sanctions. Describing the UK decision as unilateral, the Miniser said that the government conveyed its concerns but the UK didn’t change its stand.
The Island raised the issue with Minister Herath and Admiral Karannagoda in the wake of British MP of Sri Lankan origin, Uma Kumaran requesting the UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper to expand on the government’s sanctions imposed on the four above-mentioned persons.
During a Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on 16 December, the MP for Stratford and Bow highlighted the lack of accountability and political will from the current Sri Lankan government to address war crimes and mass atrocities committed in Sri Lanka.
Sources said that David Lammy, who served as Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs at the time of the declaration of sanctions, had no qualms in declaring that the action taken against four Sri Lankans was in line with a commitment he made during the election campaign to ensure those responsible wouldn’t be allowed impunity. The UK government statement quoted Lammy as having said that this decision ensured that those responsible for past human rights violations and abuses were held accountable.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
News
Sri Lanka outlines seven key vectors of international cooperation at Moscow forum
Sri Lankan Ambassador to the Russian Federation, Shobini Gunasekera recently presented a conceptual framework of seven key vectors that defined contemporary international relations and facilitated dialogue among States. She made the presentation at XI Moscow International Financial and Economic Forum held under the theme “Building Bridges: Partnership without Borders”.
In her address, the Ambassador emphasised that these vectors represent the channels through which ideas circulate, trade expands, and peace is strengthened, serving as guiding principles for cooperation amid global uncertainties. The seven key vectors highlighted were economic ties as a foundation for long-term stability; political choice and diplomacy through dialogue and multilateral engagement; security cooperation to address cross-border threats; cultural linkages through education, tourism, and professional exchanges; technological advancement, particularly in digital systems and artificial intelligence; environmental stewardship through collective action on renewable energy and climate change; and humanitarian obligations, including disaster relief and development cooperation.
Drawing on Sri Lanka’s experience, the Ambassador illustrated the practical application of these principles by highlighting the country’s strategic location in the Indian Ocean, its role as a trade and logistics hub, and its active engagement in regional groupings such as BIMSTEC and the Indian Ocean Rim Association, where the Russian Federation serves as a Dialogue Partner.
The potential for enhanced Sri Lanka–Russia bilateral cooperation was underscored, particularly through complementarities between Russia’s technological and energy expertise and Sri Lanka’s logistical capabilities and maritime infrastructure. She noted that such synergies could support joint initiatives in trade, innovation, tourism, and logistics, while cultural and scientific exchanges would further strengthen mutual understanding between the two countries.
Concluding her remarks, the Ambassador stated that sustained progress requires dialogue, mutual respect, and forward-looking partnerships capable of shaping a shared and stable future.
-
News7 days agoMembers of Lankan Community in Washington D.C. donates to ‘Rebuilding Sri Lanka’ Flood Relief Fund
-
News5 days agoBritish MP calls on Foreign Secretary to expand sanction package against ‘Sri Lankan war criminals’
-
Features7 days agoGeneral education reforms: What about language and ethnicity?
-
News7 days agoSuspension of Indian drug part of cover-up by NMRA: Academy of Health Professionals
-
Sports5 days agoChief selector’s remarks disappointing says Mickey Arthur
-
News4 days agoStreet vendors banned from Kandy City
-
Editorial7 days agoA very sad day for the rule of law
-
News7 days agoUS Ambassador to Sri Lanka among 29 career diplomats recalled
