NO CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST SRI LANKAN PRESIDENT
The Morning report headed ‘Speaker refuses to accept President NCM immediately’ informs us as follows:
[Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena yesterday (5) refused to enter the no-confidence motion (NCM) against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa into the Order Book of the Parliament immediately, stating that he needs to first consult the Attorney General about its legality, while the NCM against the Government will be placed in the Order Book of the Parliament today (6).
“At the party leaders’ meeting, the Speaker agreed to place the NCM against the Government in the Order Book. But he insisted on consulting the Attorney General about the NCM against the President,” Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK) MP and Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Spokesperson M.A. Sumanthiran PC told The Morning yesterday (5).
“We repeatedly pointed out that Article 42 of the Constitution makes the President responsible to Parliament and that Standing Order 83 (1) states that a substantive motion is needed to discuss the conduct of the President. However, they seem intent on delaying the NCM against the President.” ]
Article 42 of the Constitution states:
[42. The President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any written law, including the law for the time being relating to public security.]
To initiate the No Confidence Motion (NCM) against the President the person submitting the motion needs to believe in the Constitution as well as have access to evidence that the provision of this article has been breached by a particular action/actions of the President. A motion without this amounts to ‘frivolous motion’
The stated Standing Order of the Parliament provides as follows:
[83. (1) The personal conduct of the President, or the Acting President, Members of Parliament, Judges or other persons engaged in the administration of justice shall not be raised except upon a substantive motion; and in any proceedings, question to a Minister, or remarks in a debate on a motion dealing with any other subject reference to the conduct of any such person shall be out of order. ]
Given that the NCM against the government has been accepted – the speaker has the responsibility to ensure that the timing of the two motions under the same subject matter, are independent of each other. This would reduce the risk of finding fault with the President for mistakes made by the Prime Minister and v.v.
Mr Sumanthiran has the duty to mentally go through the provisions of the said Standing Order before questioning the delay in the speaker accepting the NCM against the President.
It is this kind of haste that led to armed rebellion by Tamil youth. Talking about Tamil youth, in a recent discussion in relation to the Tamil youth executed by the Singapore authorities, I said that as per my belief - the LTTE also traded in drugs. The discussion brought out the following response from a fellow member:
[About Narco-Smuggling and the lucrative trade of the most Notorious Rebel Outfit and the fleet of Ship owned by the Group , KP is still a living testimony in SL who was extradiated by SL sleuths in Entabbe style during the tenure of present Presdient as Defence Secretary and exonerated will explain? It’s a mystery that the expatriate in Phonix with a rebel label is blssfully unaware of it]
My response to this was:
[As per my intuition, Uganda money transfer last year through Sri Lankan Airlines is connected to LTTE money. By mentioning Entebbe you have confirmed that you also have intuition in this – even though you may not be conscious of this. ]
Another member responded as follows:
[LTTE ships are said to be sailing with Ugandan flag. The jewelry from the tigers too said to be with the grand family. In fact drug running is a known thing these days for various forms of money making and arms purchase. But whether LTTE did that is mere speculation like what Gaja said through some divine intuition and reliable hearsay.]
The motion against the President would fall under the same category as my NCM against the LTTE. But as per my experience, when we honestly share with each other, without expecting personal rewards, we contribute to the issue through truth which spreads Itself.
The Parliament facilitates ‘free speech’ towards this sharing of belief aimed at Common governance. But those driven by ‘outcome’ lose the opportunity to develop this intuitive power which naturally connects us to Universal power of truth.
Hence the motion on behalf of the Public needs to be supported by actual ‘fact’ in breach of the said article. It cannot be mere policy to oppose. When we use the law for lesser purposes than wholesome governance – the whole gets demoted to lower level of culture.
Post a Comment