The Hon. Ajith P. Perera

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Speaker, a crucial point on ministerial accountability: Under Articles 42–46 of the Constitution, the President, Cabinet Ministers, State Ministers, and Deputies are collectively accountable to Parliament. One mechanism is Motions of No Confidence. In the past, such motions have been brought against governments, Prime Ministers, even Speakers, and in 1981 against the Leader of the Opposition (Amirthalingam). Therefore, State Ministers and Deputies should also be subject to no-confidence motions.

¶ 02 Standing Orders do not explicitly bar such motions. The Standing Orders book does not specifically enumerate no-confidence motions against particular offices; absence of mention is not a prohibition. Media reports suggest a preliminary rejection, but that cannot rest on Standing Orders.

¶ 03 Authoritative practice (Priyani Wijesekera’s “Parliamentary Practice in Sri Lanka”) indicates that, for motions, Deputy Ministers are deemed members of the Cabinet for the purpose of debate. The 1981 motion against the Opposition Leader is cited, showing such motions are not restricted to Cabinet only.

¶ 04 Hon. Deputy Speaker, your time is up.

¶ 05 To conclude: blocking debate on a properly submitted no-confidence motion undermines parliamentary democracy and ministerial accountability. I do not believe Hon. Bimal Rathnayake would endorse any attempt to suppress such debate. Therefore, the motion should be taken up and we will debate its merits.

¶ 06 Thank you.