No-Confidence Motion against Speaker to Be Debated on November 3
28-Oct-2026.
The Committee on Parliamentary Business has decided to take up for debate on November 3 the revised no-confidence motion against Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne, which is to be submitted by the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB).
The SJB has alleged that the Government is attempting to proceed with the debate after removing the allegations against the Speaker, including those relating to personal misconduct. It maintains that it is inappropriate for the Speaker to preside over Parliament while facing various allegations.
The party stated that if the Government genuinely stood for civilised politics and clean governance, the Speaker should resign from his post. Otherwise, he should face the 50 allegations against him without fear.
The SJB issued a statement making these observations following the decision taken at a meeting of the Committee on Parliamentary Business to hold the debate on the no-confidence motion on November 3.
The statement further read:
“We emphasise that considering the no-confidence motion submitted by the Opposition, based on allegations of personal misconduct against Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne, at a meeting of the Committee on Parliamentary Business presided over by the very Speaker against whom the allegations have been made constitutes a serious infringement of the Opposition’s democratic rights.
“The reasons advanced by the Government for rejecting the no-confidence motion are neither logical nor reasonable. According to legal experts, the Government’s argument that the matters contained in the motion are subject to judicial proceedings is entirely unfounded.
“Another reason undermining the Government’s argument is that the report titled ‘Report of the Investigation into the Disclosure to the Media of Confidential Information Relating to the Speaker’, prepared following a letter sent by the Speaker’s personal secretary, has been relied upon as the source material underlying these allegations.
“In view of these circumstances, it is the Opposition’s position that the Speaker’s continued performance of his duties is morally untenable while the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption is conducting an investigation against him. He should step down at least for the duration of the investigation. In the absence of such ethical conduct, the Opposition is entitled to bring a no-confidence motion of this nature.
“Accordingly, the no-confidence motion was handed over to Parliament on the 9th of this month and included in the Order Book on the 12th. Subsequently, at a meeting of the Committee on Parliamentary Business held on the 12th under the chairmanship of the Deputy Speaker, while the Speaker was out of the country, it was recommended that the Attorney General be consulted and a report obtained on whether the allegations or statements contained in the motion conflicted with judicial proceedings. However, despite the understanding reached at the committee meeting, the motion has not yet been referred to the Attorney General.
“Subsequently, at a meeting of party leaders chaired by the Speaker, the position taken by the Speaker and the Government was that there was no need to consult the Attorney General and that action could be taken only if the Opposition amended the allegations and resubmitted the motion. This was a decision secured by the person facing the allegations by steering the meeting in a manner that would enable him to avoid a debate on the allegations against him.
“We emphasise that the Opposition will not submit to the Government’s alleged scheme to remove the serious allegations against the Speaker, nor will it amend or withdraw the allegations in the manner proposed by the Government or according to its wishes.
“If the Government genuinely stands for civilised politics and clean governance, the Speaker should resign from his post. Otherwise, he must face the 50 allegations against him without fear. The decision taken by the Government has placed the country’s democracy in serious jeopardy.”
