Motion of no confidence against Deputy Defence Minister Arun Jayasekara cannot be accepted: Speaker

11-Sep-2025

.

Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne informed Parliament that the motion of no confidence against Deputy Defence Minister Arun Jayasekara is irregular and cannot be accepted in its present form, as it would set an undesirable precedent contrary to the Constitution and parliamentary conventions.

The Leader of the Opposition strongly objected to the Speaker’s announcement and insisted that the reports submitted by the Attorney General’s Department and the Parliamentary Secretariat regarding this motion be presented to Parliament.

General Secretary of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), Ranjith Madduma Bandara, addressing the Speaker, said that the Speaker must safeguard parliamentary democracy and the rights of the Opposition. If the Speaker acts improperly, a motion of no confidence could be brought against him.

During the sitting on September 10, the Speaker noted that, following the no-confidence motion submitted on August 12 by 32 MPs including the Opposition Leader, he had carefully reviewed the Constitution, parliamentary standing orders, procedures, precedents, and the practices of other Commonwealth parliaments such as the Indian Lok Sabha and the Australian House of Representatives.

The Constitution clearly provides for no-confidence motions against the government, the Prime Minister, individual cabinet ministers, and the Leader of the Opposition. However, there are no provisions for such a motion against a deputy minister. Therefore, accepting such a motion would create an undesirable precedent inconsistent with constitutional and parliamentary traditions.

Hence, the Speaker declared the motion against the Deputy Defence Minister irregular and unacceptable in its current form.

Following this, Opposition Chief Whip Gayanta Karunathilake raised a point of order, stating that the Speaker himself had acknowledged seeking reports from the Attorney General’s Department and the Secretary General of Parliament on whether the motion interfered with judicial proceedings. If the Speaker had received those reports, they should be presented to Parliament.

The Opposition argued that a no-confidence motion can be brought against any political officeholder and that the Attorney General had indicated no legal obstacle. They demanded both reports be tabled in Parliament.

The Speaker responded that his decision was based on parliamentary standing orders, principles, conventions, and international parliamentary practices. He said he would consider whether to present the reports to Parliament.

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa then requested an opportunity to state their position, arguing that a deputy minister is part of the executive authority and therefore subject to a no-confidence motion.

Government Chief Whip Bimal Ratnayake responded that once the Speaker has ruled, no debate can be held on it under parliamentary standing orders. He stressed that while the government is willing to debate the motion, determining its constitutionality is the Speaker’s responsibility. If the Opposition wishes, they may bring the motion in another form.

During the heated exchanges, SJB MP and President’s Counsel Nizam Kariapper criticized the Speaker for issuing the ruling without adequate prior notice.

General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara warned that unless the Speaker safeguards democracy and Opposition rights, they would be compelled to move a no-confidence motion against him, adding that for the first time in parliamentary history a no-confidence motion was dismissed without debate. He urged the Speaker not to act unilaterally.

The Speaker’s announcement was met with strong protests from Opposition members.