The Hon. Namal Rajapaksa, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Speaker, Government speakers began calling this a “historic day.” If you think it is historic, then the Samagi Jana Balawegaya is also part of that history. I will not centre this on an individual; this is a pending court matter. But the Minister of Justice has today undertaken a full-blown debate here on a matter sub judice, as has the Minister in charge of Police. Under Standing Order 91(f), there is a procedure for debating matters pending before courts. All of that has been ignored. That is historic indeed—because the Speaker and this Government must take responsibility for violating Standing Orders. This is not about the individual—everyone has their own assessment of him. My view is this: if building a parliamentary debate around this issue impacts the judicial process, that is not fair, Hon. Minister. It is not fair.

¶ 02 You have cited many things. Looking at the charge sheet, most have been presented to the Matara High Court by way of “B” reports. You have taken what was filed and brought it here. I raised this in the Parliamentary Business Committee as well. If so, the Speaker should state openly that this debate will not harm judicial proceedings, that he is satisfied and will take responsibility. Otherwise, he could have suspended Standing Orders. With such a mechanism available, why go outside it? You say you won’t do as “the previous lot” did—yet you are doing exactly that, only worse. The Hon. Minister also talked of “Siddhalepa.” Whose? Where? Who saw it? We have heard those stories for 15 years.

¶ 03 We are not saying do not investigate or decide. Do it—but do it fairly. If within this process any individual is treated unfairly by the system, we do not agree. The IGP is just one person, but the police is not only him. Is it right to disgrace the entire police by debating a sub judice matter? You transfer officers, reshuffle, stop recruitments to suit your political needs and call it fair? Every government has exerted some pressure; you are doing it double. If you transfer an OIC, at least give a reason. If you halt recruitment, give a reason. Instead, you are politicizing everything from death-benefit societies to youth movements to fill your party’s ranks.

¶ 04 We have no issue with politics, but do not do it in an ugly, base way. You promised to work properly—so work properly. Do not keep repeating the same point. If you like, I will even loan my Lamborghini to take Mr. Tennakoon home; if you want, the helicopter too. That is how this began.

¶ 05 We ask one thing: stop violating Standing Orders. Do not turn Parliament into a majoritarian adjunct of the ruling party by flouting them. I also appeal to the Leader of the Opposition—do not allow this. Implement your agenda, but do so under Standing Orders. The Speaker could and should have made a clear statement before commencing this debate, or suspended Standing Orders. We did not say no to the debate. But you proceed by saying, “We have 159; we will show power; do what you want.”

¶ 06 You have crushed the public service. The former Army Commander has been taken into custody; the former Navy Commander too, and produced in court; even placed for an identification parade, bringing an ex-LTTE intelligence head to identify the former Navy Commander. I could name him, but I refrain from naming those not in the House.

¶ 07 The issue is enforcing the law—but if you enforce it for political aims, that is not fair. Conduct this debate without harming due process. The Minister began with matters in the “B” report—that is his choice. As a party, and personally, I will abstain from voting, because this is pending in court. Soon you will see who set whom up. You know who beat and who lit the torch; both are not in this House—one even became President, so I will not speak of it.

¶ 08 Hon. Deputy Speaker, you too are part of this wrongdoing by allowing this—though you are a learned professional, as is the Hon. Speaker. Do not, to fulfil this Government’s whims, violate Standing Orders and tarnish Parliament and the judiciary. If within this process someone interferes with courts, you must intervene and stop it. We firmly believe debates should avoid sub judice matters.

¶ 09 Thank you.