Connect with us

News

Suspenstion of Deputy Secy. Gen., Parliament flawed, unlawful and violated established parliamentary traditions – SJB

Published

on

Former parliamentarian Lakshaman Kiriella briefs the media regarding the suspension of Deputy Secretary General of Parliament Chaminda Kularatne (pic by Thushara Atapattu)

The main Opposition SJB yesterday strongly criticised the government over the suspension of Deputy Secretary General of Parliament Chaminda Kularatne, alleging that the procedure adopted was flawed, unlawful and in violation of established parliamentary traditions.

Addressing a press conference at the SJB headquarters in Ethul Kotte, former Chief Opposition Whip and Kandy District MP Lakshman Kiriella said the Speaker had no authority, under Parliamentary practice, to remove or suspend a senior parliamentary official without first reporting the matter to the House.

Kiriella said Sri Lanka’s Parliament was governed by two primary sources — Standing Orders and long-standing British parliamentary traditions and precedents — both of which must be adhered to in the absence of explicit statutory provisions.

“The Standing Orders derive their authority from the Parliament Powers and Privileges Act, which is silent on the procedure for removing parliamentary officials. In such circumstances, Parliament is bound by British traditions and precedents, as outlined in Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, which is regarded as the bible of parliamentary procedure,” he said.

According to Kiriella, Erskine May makes it clear that the Speaker does not possess unilateral powers to remove a parliamentary official, particularly one holding a senior and “exalted” position, such as the Deputy Secretary General.

He said that where allegations warranting removal are made against a parliamentary official, the Speaker is required to submit a detailed report to the House outlining the charges, supporting evidence and reasons for initiating such action. Only, thereafter, could the House decide on the matter, in keeping with British parliamentary precedent.

Kiriella said the recent decision to suspend Kularatne had instead been taken by the Staff Advisory Committee (SAC), which he described as an administrative body lacking the powers and privileges vested in recognised parliamentary oversight committees such as COPE, COPA and COPF.

“The Staff Advisory Committee does not enjoy the powers of the House and, therefore, has no authority to suspend a parliamentary official,” he said.

While stating that he did not place personal blame on the Speaker, whom he said had limited experience in parliamentary procedure, Kiriella faulted senior officials and members of the SAC for failing to properly advise him on the legal and procedural implications of the decision.

“This is the first time in parliamentary history that a Deputy Secretary General has been removed or suspended. While MPs and officials are familiar with impeachments and no-confidence motions, they are not sufficiently versed in the procedural propriety required for the removal of parliamentary officials,” he said.

Kiriella further alleged that Kularatne had not been served with a formal charge sheet, nor had he been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations or be heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice.

“He has not been informed of the charges against him, no inquiry has been conducted and he has been denied a fair hearing. This alone raises serious questions about the validity of the suspension,” he said.

He also said British parliamentary tradition required that an accused parliamentary official be afforded protection and legal assistance by the “Law Officers of the Crown,” noting that in Sri Lanka this responsibility rested with the Attorney General’s Department.

“As such, Kularatne is entitled to legal assistance from the Attorney General in this matter,” Kiriella said.

The former Chief Opposition Whip warned that the controversy could have wider repercussions, including reputational damage to Sri Lanka’s parliamentary democracy.

“The inexperience and ignorance of parliamentary practice on the part of the government has created this mess. It risks creating the impression internationally that our Parliament does not adhere to democratic principles,” he said.

Kiriella added that those who opposed the move within the SAC should have formally recorded the legal grounds for their objections, rather than merely expressing dissent for the record.

“Now that the process has been set in motion, it is likely to bring ill repute to the country,” he said.

By Saman Indrajith



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

News

Prof. Pieris says Buddha Dhamma recognised as source of law under Constitution

Published

on

G.L. Peiris

Former Minister and People’s Joint Opposition Convener Prof. G.L. Peiris has challenged the assertion that the Supreme Court’s determination on the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution would be based solely on law and not Buddhist teachings, arguing that such a position is inconsistent with Article 9 of the Constitution and established judicial precedent.

In a special statement, titled “Buddhist Doctrine as a Source of Law in Sri Lanka”, Prof. Peiris has said the issue had arisen during the 22nd Amendment determination proceedings when Ven. Balangoda Kassapa referred to the Buddha Dhamma in his submissions.

According to Prof. Peiris, the Chief Justice responded that the determination would be made on the basis of the law and not Buddhist teachings.

Describing this as a “cavalier dismissal” of the Buddha Dhamma. Prof. Peiris has said it is contrary to Article 9, which gives Buddhism the foremost place and requires the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana.

Full text of the statement: In the 22nd Amendment determination proceedings, Venerable Balangoda Kassapa, in his submissions, made reference to the Buddha Dhamma. His Lordship the Chief Justice, in reply, made the strong assertion that the determination would be made on the basis of the law and not Buddhist teachings. This cavalier dismissal of the Buddha Dhamma is totally inconsistent with Article 9 of the Constitution and its authoritative interpretation in judicial decisions.

I. Authoritative Sri Lankan Judicial Authority A few examples may be cited.

In the Antiquities Amendment Bill, the Supreme Court, in its determination, observed: “The expression Buddha Sasana is wider than Buddhism and includes the entire establishment, together with objects and places of religious practices and worship of Buddhists”.

In Re the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Provincial Councils Bill, 1987 2 Sri Lanka LR 312, Wanasundera J, referring to the term Buddha Sasana, said that it was “a compendious term encompassing all ancient, historic and sacred objects and places which have from ancient times been associated with the religious practices and worship of Sinhala Buddhists”.

It is clear that the Buddha Sasana is not confined to matters of ritual or practice, but includes the substance of Buddhist teachings. This is borne out clearly in other judgments of the Supreme Court.

An explicit example is the determination of the Supreme Court in the Ayurveda Amendment Bill, SCSD, numbers 22-35/2023, where the Court declared: “We hold that Buddha Sasana in Article 9 of the Constitution includes the dhamma, principles and teachings of Buddhism, including in particular recognized and undisputed codifications of the teachings of Lord Buddha”.

There are several other passages in the judgment which offer strong authority on the point.

The Court declared: “We determine that the word Buddha Sasana in Article 9 is a compendious term and includes the entire establishment of Buddhism as defined above. We conclude that the Tripitaka, consisting of the Vinaya Pitaka, the Sutta Pitaka and the Abhidhamma Pitaka, falls within the word Buddha Sasana. Hence the State has a duty inter alia to protect and foster the Tripitaka”.

The Court was uncompromising in its declaration that “While retaining the word Buddhism to denote the religion to which foremost place has been accorded in the Republic, the word Buddha Sasana was used to impose a duty on the State to protect and foster the entire establishment of Buddhism”.

The Court’s approach is very clear from the following passage: “We must proceed to interpret Article 9 of the Constitution on the basis that this change was intentional on the part of the legislature. It was meant to cover an area wider than Buddhism”.

II. International Judicial Authority

There is valuable material in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

Judge C. G. Weeramantry, in his dissenting opinion in the ICJ’s 1996 advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, said that Buddhism could provide an important humanitarian perspective when considering the legality of nuclear weapons. The judge cited as his source the work by Walpola Rahula, entitled What the Buddha Taught, 1959.

Similarly, Judge Weeramantry, in his separate opinion in the maritime delimitation in the area between Greenland and Jan Mayen case, 1993, commented on the international legal concept of equity. In this connection, he referred to “the elaborately researched concept of fairness and justice in Buddhism”.

Continue Reading

News

GR leaves FCID after making statement over MiG deal

Published

on

Former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa left the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) last evening after making a statement for several hours in connection with the ongoing investigation into the controversial procurement of MiG fighter aircraft.

Rajapaksa arrived at the FCID Headquarters yesterday morning after being summoned by investigators to assist with the inquiry into the procurement and related financial transactions involving the aircraft acquired for the Sri Lanka Air Force.

He was questioned for several hours before leaving the premises later in the day.

Meanwhile, former Air Force Commander Air Chief Marshal Roshan Goonetileke also appeared before the FCID on Thursday to provide a statement in connection with the same investigation.Goonetileke left the FCID after being questioned for more than five hours.

Continue Reading

News

Dengue cases top 97,000 in 2026

Published

on

Sri Lanka has recorded 97,027 dengue cases so far this year, with 1,536 cases reported during the first part of September, according to the National Dengue Control Unit.

The dengue death toll has also risen to 74, highlighting the continuing threat posed by the mosquito-borne disease.

The Western Province has recorded the highest number of cases, with 51,180, followed by the Southern Province with 14,036, the Central Province with 8,958, and Sabaragamuwa with 7,998.

At district level, Gampaha has recorded the highest number of cases at 20,622, followed by Colombo with 19,168.

Kandy has reported 7,199 cases, while Matara and Kalutara have recorded 6,186 and 6,218 cases, respectively.

The Health authorities continue to identify 40 Medical Officer of Health (MOH) areas across the country as high-risk zones.

The National Dengue Control Unit has urged the public to remain vigilant and take necessary measures to prevent mosquito breeding, particularly as dengue transmission continues to affect several parts of the country.

Continue Reading

Trending