Opposition parties in Sri Lanka will table a motion of no confidence against an incumbent speaker on Tuesday March 05 for the first time in the legislature’s history, opposition lawmaker G L Peiris said.
“At no point in the history of this country has a no-confidence motion (NCM) being tabled against a speaker. It’s a special event,” said Peiris.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Peiris said NCMs have been tabled against four prime ministers and 14 ministers, and against 27 governments as a whole.
“This is the 26th speaker. No NCM has been tabled against a speaker. The opposition has taken this decision responsibly, looking ahead and in the absence of an alternative,” he said.
“All parties in the opposition have already expressed their full support for this NCM. This too is a rare occurrence. Various opinions exist within the opposition, but when it comes to this matter, every group in the opposition has been able to reach a consensus,” he added.
The NCM was filed by the main opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) against Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena for approving the controversial Online Safety Bill allegedly in violation of Supreme Court recommendations.
The SJB said previously that the motion was filed against the speaker’s “gross misconduct and disregard for the supreme law of the land”.
“He has betrayed the trust of the people and the parliament. It’s time to unite for transparency and accountability,” the party said in a statement.
Peiris is not a member of the SJB but sits in the opposition. His formation of “independent” MPs formerly of the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna were party to the signing of the NCM against Speaker Abeywardena on Monday February 26.
Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP M A Sumanthiran, a vocal critic of the bill, was also part of the signatories to the motion.
Parliament’s recent passing of the Online Safety Bill (OBS) has been controversial.
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) said in January that the process followed in enacting bill raised serious questions on law-making and its impact on constitutional democracy. The organisation urged the government to replace the act with a law that “genuinely addresses” concerns on online safety.
Claiming that the process of drafting the OSA was shrouded in secrecy, CPA said the rushed manner of its passage raises questions as to the intentions of the government in enacting a law that has significant implications for fundamental rights and the rule of law in Sri Lanka.
“CPA has previously commented on the substance and process followed with the Bill and challenged its constitutionality. In light of recent events surrounding the enactment of the OSA, CPA condemns the enactment of such a draconian law that can further limit freedom of speech and the right to dissent,” the organisation said.