Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney at Law, M.P.
Profession: Attorney-at-Law
Speeches 748 #2 of 225·#1 in party
Attendance 6/8 days present (of recorded)
Top topic Parliamentary Procedure 548 speeches
Last spoke 9 June 2026 in Oral question
Activity by sitting
115 sittings · counts only, no scoring.
Topic focus
AI summary AI-assigned tags, 1–3 per speech. Counts only — not a score.
Speech history
748 speeches- 1 March 2025 AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara raised a privilege matter alleging that the Prime Minister gave incorrect information in response to his supplementary question on the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Rajarata University. He tabled a UGC letter dated 2025.01.06 which, he said, shows that the instruction to reinitiate the selection process came from the President’s Secretary through the Ministry, not because the UGC had rejected the names recommended by the University Council. He requested that any contrary UGC letter be tabled and asked that the matter be referred to the Committee on Ethics and Privileges. Privilege Matter: Vice-Chancellor Appointment - Rajarata University Parliamentary ProcedureCorruption & Governance ReformEducation Read →
- 1 March 2025 AI summary The Member requested that another speaker be allowed to conclude their remarks. No substantive policy argument, proposal, or question was presented in this intervention. Debate: Fuel Supply and Energy Crisis (Discussion under Standing Order 27(2)) Parliamentary Procedure Read →
- 1 March 2025 AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara objected to interruptions during proceedings and asserted that other Members also have rights to participate. He called attention to the need to maintain order and allow Members to be heard. Debate: Fuel Supply and Energy Crisis (Discussion under Standing Order 27(2)) Parliamentary Procedure Read →
- 1 March 2025 AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara objected that Members were not being allowed to speak during the proceedings. He requested that the Leader of the House be given the microphone, amid interruptions. Debate: Fuel Supply and Energy Crisis (Discussion under Standing Order 27(2)) Parliamentary Procedure Read →
- 1 March 2025 AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara objected to an unclear procedural intervention in Parliament, stating that merely calling “Order, please” was insufficient. He demanded clarity from the Chair or presiding authority on what action was being taken. Debate: Fuel Supply and Energy Crisis (Discussion under Standing Order 27(2)) Parliamentary Procedure Read →
- 1 March 2025 AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara briefly objected during an interruption, questioning what was happening in the Chamber. No substantive policy position, legislative issue, or proposal was raised in the recorded remark. Debate: Fuel Supply and Energy Crisis (Discussion under Standing Order 27(2)) Parliamentary Procedure Read →
- 1 March 2025 AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara requested additional time from the Leader of the House to raise concerns about a proposed decision affecting fuel dealers. He said there had been an earlier decision to raise the cap to 640, referred to a Court of Appeal ruling and a Board paper, and noted that dealers had rejected the proposal at a meeting. Citing reduced fuel consumption after the QR code system and lower recent orders for Octane 92 petrol and diesel, he urged the Minister to consult dealers before implementation to avoid further litigation and disruption. Debate: Fuel Supply and Energy Crisis (Discussion under Standing Order 27(2)) Public FinanceInfrastructure Read →
- 1 March 2025 AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that he wished to raise several questions and requested that he be allowed an opportunity to speak. Debate: Fuel Supply and Energy Crisis (Discussion under Standing Order 27(2)) Parliamentary Procedure Read →
- 1 March 2025 AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara sought the Speaker’s permission to ask a question. No substantive policy issue, proposal, or legislative matter was raised in the excerpt provided. Debate: Fuel Supply and Energy Crisis (Discussion under Standing Order 27(2)) Parliamentary Procedure Read →
- 28 February 2025 AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara urged the Government to address responsibilities to Northern and Eastern voters beyond political messaging, and called for a comprehensive programme against the underworld, including using Boossa Prison for high-risk offenders, virtual court procedures, and accountability for recent security failures. He raised concerns over human–elephant conflict workers not being regularized, alleged informal funding of police station refurbishments, and a Gazette extending women soldiers’ service for retirement to 22 years. He also demanded further investigation into the Easter attacks, including questioning named individuals and witnesses, and referred to unresolved allegations surrounding Rohana Wijeweera’s killing and available witnesses. Appropriation Bill 2025 - Committee Stage Debate Continued (Afternoon) Justice & Human RightsLaw & OrderSecurity & Defence Read →
- 27 February 2025 AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara commended the President’s reduced use of official privileges but raised concerns about national security, citing a recent courtroom shooting and questioning the roles of the police, prisons, and court processes. He called for a full accounting and recovery of illegal firearms remaining from the LTTE conflict, Tamil armed groups, the 1987–89 JVP insurrection, and anti-insurgent paramilitary groups, arguing that such weapons may now fuel underworld violence. He also referred to past security breaches in Parliament, questioned catering arrangements and food costs, urged approval of leave allowances for overworked parliamentary staff, and called for even-handed accountability in investigations involving parliamentary officials and others. Debate: Committee Stage of the 2025 Appropriation Bill - Special Expenditure Heads (Heads 1-25) and Amendments Security & DefenceLaw & OrderJustice & Human Rights Read →
- 27 February 2025 AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara objected to the Government’s alleged practice of reappointing university Councils and seeking fresh recommendations for Vice Chancellor appointments instead of acting on nominations already made before the change of government. He cited cases involving the Universities of Ruhuna, Rajarata, Eastern and South Eastern, and argued that restarting a process normally begun months in advance was unfair and could disadvantage candidates. He asked what action the Government would take to address the issue. Oral Question: Grade 5 Scholarship Exam 2024 - Leak of Questions (Q.105/2024) Corruption & Governance ReformEducation Read →
- 27 February 2025 AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara raised concerns about the handling of vice chancellor appointments at Rajarata University, Eastern University, and South Eastern University. He alleged that names proposed by university councils appointed before the current Government were sent back and new councils asked to submit fresh names, arguing that university councils are composed of qualified individuals rather than political appointees. He compared this to earlier disputes over vice chancellor appointments and questioned the Government’s consistency on the issue. Oral Question: Grade 5 Scholarship Exam 2024 - Leak of Questions (Q.105/2024) EducationCorruption & Governance Reform Read →
- 27 February 2025 AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara complained that he was being prevented from asking his question and proceeded to raise a second supplementary question to the Prime Minister. He began by referring to the Prime Minister’s time at the Open University and to the period when Ranil Wickremesinghe was President, but the substantive question is not included in the excerpt. Oral Question: Grade 5 Scholarship Exam 2024 - Leak of Questions (Q.105/2024) Parliamentary Procedure Read →
- 27 February 2025 AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara noted that the Prime Minister had agreed to allow a question to be raised. He indicated that if the question were not permitted, he would proceed with a different question. Oral Question: Grade 5 Scholarship Exam 2024 - Leak of Questions (Q.105/2024) Parliamentary Procedure Read →
- 27 February 2025 AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara raised a procedural point by referring to the Standing Orders and indicating he had reviewed them. He appeared to seek the Speaker’s guidance or the Minister’s consent on a matter, but the excerpt ends before the specific request or issue is stated. Oral Question: Grade 5 Scholarship Exam 2024 - Leak of Questions (Q.105/2024) Parliamentary Procedure Read →
- 27 February 2025 AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara objected to an interjection or characterization of his remarks as “enthusiasm,” stating that he was raising a question. He complained to the Speaker that interruptions or difficulties arise whenever he speaks, and attributed the issue to the conduct or attitudes of others in the Chamber. Oral Question: Grade 5 Scholarship Exam 2024 - Leak of Questions (Q.105/2024) Parliamentary Procedure Read →
- 27 February 2025 AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that there was no procedural issue with him asking the question because the relevant Member had no objection. He urged the Speaker not to prevent such questions, noting that this was a customary practice. Oral Question: Grade 5 Scholarship Exam 2024 - Leak of Questions (Q.105/2024) Parliamentary Procedure Read →
- 27 February 2025 AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara acknowledged the Prime Minister’s response regarding action taken after a Supreme Court decision, then raised a supplementary question on higher education. He specifically sought clarification on the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of the Open University, referencing the Prime Minister’s prior association with that institution. Oral Question: Grade 5 Scholarship Exam 2024 - Leak of Questions (Q.105/2024) Education Read →
- 27 February 2025 AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara questioned the handling of the Grade 5 Scholarship Examination issue affecting 319,000 students, noting that although action was taken against offenders, the decision to adjust marking rather than re-hold the exam had created concerns about fairness. He said some students who did not attempt the disputed questions may have gained an advantage over those who did. He also raised concern that Grade 6 admissions had proceeded without cut-off marks being issued, causing overcrowding and shortages of classroom facilities, and requested immediate action to resolve the situation. Oral Question: Grade 5 Scholarship Exam 2024 - Leak of Questions (Q.105/2024) Education Read →