MPs back Speaker’s decision to reconvene P’ment

Thursday, 13 December 2018 00:29 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

Rejects UPFA claim that Speaker should not have reconvened P’ment after SC Stay Order

Lawmakers of the UNP, ITAK and the JVP unanimously agreed yesterday that no decision of the Speaker could be challenged by any forum outside Parliament, including the Supreme Court.

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya looks on during a parliament session yesterday - AFP

UNP MP Lakshman Kiriella, criticising UPFA’s recent decision to boycott Parliament and plans to seek legal remedy to prevent Speaker from continuing Parliament sittings, said: “The UPFA has detailed plans to take legal action against the Speaker for convening the House. They have referred to the Speaker’s decision as Contempt of Court. But according to Clause 3 of the Parliament Privileges Act, the Speaker’s decisions cannot be challenged in any Court. The UPFA has failed to take part in today’s sitting by challenging the Speaker’s decisions. There is an important ruling that states the Supreme Court can’t influence the Parliament,” he held.

According to a historical ruling of former Speaker Anura Dias Bandaranaike, it was held that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to issue Interim Orders restraining the Speaker of Parliament, Interim Orders do not bind the Speaker of Parliament, and there is no legal obligation to comply.

Speaker Bandaranaike gave this unprecedented ruling in response to a move by the Supreme Court in June 2001 to intervene and interfere with the proceedings of Parliament by a three-judge bench, issuing a Stay Order restraining the Speaker from appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Chief Justice, consequent to an impeachment motion being forwarded to the Speaker in terms of the Constitution and Standing Orders. (AH)