News

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

Published

3 months ago

2026/01/28

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

All News Advertisement

News

Govt. assures UN of readiness to introduce ‘vetting process’ for troops on overseas missions

Published

13 hours ago

2026/04/28

Sahan Weerasooriya

Thuyakontha

Defence Secretary (retd.) Air Marshal Sampath Thuyakontha has discussed with UN officials in New York the deployment of Sri Lankan troops in Haiti, under a new UN authorised force, tasked with tackling heavily armed gangs operating in the violence ravaged country.

The UN is in the process of building up a force comprising approximately 5,500 officers and men for deployment in Haiti.

The Sri Lankan delegation included Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN, former Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya. The UN has tagged the deployment Gang Suppression Force (GSF).

According to the Defence Ministry, Sri Lanka negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) regarding the GSF. Although Sri Lanka has contributed to UN-led missions, the proposed deployment differed due to the nature of the operation, sources told The Island.

The delegation has assured that all personnel, assigned for UN missions, including the proposed GSF deployment in Haiti, would be subjected to a comprehensive screening process, in line with UN standards. War-winning Sri Lanka has declared, in New York, that the country was in the process of developing, what the Defence Ministry here called, National Human Rights Vetting Mechanism in consultation with the UN Resident Coordinator in Colombo.

The US has backed the deployment of Sri Lankan troops under UN command. Various interested parties, over the years, protested against the deployment of Sri Lankan troops on the basis of unsubstantiated war crimes allegations.

Thuyakontha has assured that troops would maintain highest standards of discipline during overseas missions. Sri Lanka brought the war here to a successful conclusion in May 2009 against predictions of contrary outcome by so-called experts.

The US and Panama proposed the GSF to replace a Kenya-led multinational force undermined by a lack of funding. Its strength hovered around 1,000, rather than the desired 2,500. The U.N. Security Council authorised the 5,500 strong force on September 30, 2025, with the new power to arrest gang members.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

News

Lawyers cannot be denied right to represent a suspect – Udaya

Published

13 hours ago

2026/04/28

Sahan Weerasooriya

Sallay

Sallay’s case:

Attorney-at-law Udaya Gammanpila yesterday (27) said a lawyer could not be deprived of his or her right to represent a client.

The former Minister and leader of Pivuthuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) Gammanpila said so addressing the media at the party headoffice at Pita Kotte. Gammanpila was responding to recent media reports that he had been prohibited from representing retired State Intelligence Service (SIS) Chief Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay. Therefore, there was absolutely no basis for claims that he had been barred from meeting the retired officer, now named the third suspect in the Easter Sunday case, the ex-parliamentarian said.

Gammanpila emphasised that in terms of the Constitution a suspect’s right to be represented by a lawyer was recognised as a fundamental right. The Criminal procedure Code, too, guaranteed the suspect’s right to consult a lawyer, the ex-lawmaker said, pointing out that the Judicial Organisation Act underscored the same.

Declaring that the retired officer’s wife had named him as Sallay’s lawyer in a letter addressed to Director, CID, Gammanpila said that the courts, police and the Attorney General’s Department couldn’t under any circumstances interfere with his right to represent Sallay.

The CID arrested Sallay on 25 February and detained him under Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) for a period of 90 days. Sallay has filed a writ petition before the Court of Appeal through his lawyers, challenging his arrest and detention by the CID under the PTA.

Former Minister Gammanpila said that even if a Magistrate had the power to prohibit a lawyer from representing a particular suspect, such a course of action couldn’t be resorted to without giving the lawyer concern an opportunity to explain his/her actions.

Declaring that in case of misconduct on the part of a lawyer only the Supreme Court could take disciplinary action, the PHU leader said, adding that he sought a certified copy of the proceedings of the day when a section of the media reported the Magistrate’s declaration of the purported ban. Gammapila said that he was really keen to know what happened during the proceedings on that day.

Sallay served as Director, Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) from 2012 to 2016 and received the appointment as head of SIS following the 2019 presidential election. Sallay held that appointment till early October, 2024.

Gammanpila said that he couldn’t be barred for speaking to the media after meeting Sallay, currently held under PTA, or for authoring a book on the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage. According to Gammanpila as long as the suspect had no objections to his lawyer sharing some information with the media it shouldn’t be an issue for Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

News

Police seek Interpol help to probe monks nabbed with narcotics at BIA

Published

13 hours ago

2026/04/28

Sahan Weerasooriya

Police investigating the thwarted a bid made by 22 Buddhist monks to smuggle in narcotics, with a street value of Rs 660 mn via BIA, from Thailand, over the weekend, believe the monks who organised the clandestine operation had sent groups of monks to Thailand before.

Sources said that they had brought in narcotics on earlier occasions.

Police have seized the mobile phones used by the suspects and sought INTERPOL assistance.

Earlier, the Negombo Magistrate’s Court remanded those 22 monks, arrested in connection with the largest drug bust in the airport’s history.

The monks were produced before the Negombo Magistrate’s Court and ordered to be held in custody until 02 May, as investigations continue into the alleged smuggling operation and any wider networks involved.

However, other sources said that more than 110 kilogrammes of suspected Kush and Hashish, with an estimated street value exceeding Rs 1.1 billion, had been found, concealed in false-bottoms of their suitcases. The bags reportedly packed with school supplies and sweets are said to have contained over five kilogrammes of narcotics per individual.

The arrests followed a raid by the Police Narcotics Bureau on Saturday night. Investigators have also recovered mobile phone evidence indicating that the group had travelled to Bangkok on 22 April using airline tickets allegedly given by a sponsor. Authorities allege that the suspects were photographed in civilian clothing, while overseas, engaging in activities deemed suspicious.

Police say this marks the first reported instance of a large-scale narcotics operation via the airport involving Buddhist monks. The suspects are young monks from different parts of the country.

By Norman Palihawadana