Ceylon Today - Editorial
In a startling revelation, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya told
Parliament on Wednesday (10) that he had received death threats demanding that
he give recognition to the Joint Opposition as an independent group in
Parliament.
According to the Speaker, he was threatened by a caller on
Tuesday night, the day he refused to recognize the 'Joint Opposition' as an
independent group saying that he did not intend to be a party to a sin of
splitting a political party.
While there may have been similar incidents earlier when
Speakers of Sri Lankan Parliament could have come under threats during various
regimes, it is for the first time that such an incident was announced to the
House.
It is alarming that the highest authority appointed to
protect the rights and privileges of people's representatives is under threat
of losing his life over a ruling he issued on the members.
The Speaker is the final authority on the interpretation of
the Standing Orders of the House, and his rulings or orders should not be
challenged except upon a substantive motion of no-confidence. The House should
thus accept his rulings however unpalatable. Disobeying the Speaker's rulings
and unruly protests where members invade the Well of the House, preventing
business being carried out, is not uncommon.
Sir Erskine May in his book, Parliamentary Authority, states
that challenging the authority of the Speaker is challenging the authority of
Parliament as he is the custodian of not only the rights and privileges of the
members of the House but the buildings and its surroundings.
The Speaker while in the Chair has absolute powers even to
defy the Crown or in the case of Sri Lanka, the President. In the yesteryears
the Speakers were known to have been exercising this absolute power that the
Speaker in British Parliament defying the King had said once, 'I hear
nothing... I see nothing... I only hear what the House orders me...'
If a member or a group of members are not in agreement with
a ruling given by the Speaker from the Chair such should only be challenged on
a substantive motion of no-confidence. A lot depends on the wording of such a
motion. It could ask the Speaker to give reasons for his ruling or request him
to reconsider the decision. Calling him in the middle of the night and issuing
death threats is certainly not the way it should be dealt with.
The Speaker is the absolute Patriarch of the House even when
the Executive President is present in the House, and would resist all attempts
to challenge the rightful supremacy of Parliament in its sphere of
constitutional activity. In keeping with these traditions, in 2001, Speaker
Anura Bandaranaike rejected a restraining order issued by the Supreme Court to
prevent the appointment of a select committee. Also, in 2003, Speaker Joseph
Michael Perera made a statement of protest when the President prorogued
Parliament without a valid reason.
The Speaker is the Third Citizen of this country by protocol
and the guardian of the House and threatening his life is by no means a minor
matter and need to be thoroughly investigated.
While, Speaker Jayasuriya said he was unafraid of death
threats and fearless of death itself, the demand forwarded by UPFA MP Dullas
Alahapperuma to hold an inquiry into the threats, and inform the House about
the results of such an investigation, cannot be ignored.
If this incident is not investigated, it can be alleged that
the Joint Opposition was responsible. Investigating this is not only your duty
but is our right to seek, Alahapperuma said.
JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake also inquired yesterday
as to what action the Speaker has taken in this regard. Speaker Jayasuriya must
get the Police to conduct a proper investigation into the incident so that the
culprits of this heinous act would be revealed. It can also prevent recurrence
of such actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment