The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 PRIVILEGE: NON-SUBMISSION OF AGREEMENTS SIGNED WITH INDIA AND CHINA TO PARLIAMENT

¶ 02 Hon. Deputy Speaker, this concerns a breach of parliamentary privilege regarding freedom of speech, debate, and proceedings under Section 4, Part A of the Parliamentary (Powers and Privileges) Act.

¶ 03 On 4–6 April, the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Sri Lanka. Media report around seven agreements were signed between Sri Lanka and India. Previously, over 70 agreements were reportedly signed with China, per statements by the Hon. President and the Foreign Minister.

¶ 04 Members of Parliament have a right to be informed of agreements signed by the Government with other States. Past undisclosed agreements have created challenges for the country and for subsequent Governments. Any Government signs such agreements on behalf of the Motherland—not as a party, a President, or a regime. As a long-serving member of the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on National Security, I note that the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987 has been widely debated regarding its pros and cons.

¶ 05 No briefing or discussion has been held in the National Security Advisory Committee on the contents of the recently signed defence agreement with India. Even for the IMF agreement with the then Government, debate in Parliament was sought repeatedly by then Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and Anura Kumara Dissanayake. Nevertheless, the current Government is implementing those commitments, with both merits and demerits.

¶ 06 The current Government had pledged to revise IMF commitments and pursue a different Debt Sustainability Analysis, but that proved empty. In international law, agreements between State leaders must be approved by a legislative majority to have internal legal effect—dualism. For example, the 1987 Accord was approved by a two-thirds majority in our Parliament.

¶ 07 There were also “exchange of letters” alongside that Accord. I seek leave to table two such letters.

¶ 08 Further, under Article 157 of the Constitution, international agreements important to the national economy require a two-thirds majority to be given effect in Sri Lanka. Thus, any defence agreement signed with India must be approved by two-thirds of Parliament.

¶ 09 Approvals reportedly granted by the President without discussion in the National Security Advisory Committee or COPA-like oversight violate parliamentary privilege and undermine Parliament’s authority.

¶ 10 Since 1971, the JVP built a strong anti-India movement, which escalated after 1987, culminating in grave violence. Therefore, such agreements must be handled transparently with all parties consulted, and not kept secret from the people and Parliament—especially by a Government that opposed “secret agreements.”

¶ 11 In the era of the QUAD (an Indo-Pacific strategic grouping of the US, India, Australia and Japan), a defence pact with a leading member risks harming Sri Lanka’s long-held non-alignment and may affect relations with China as well. As the SLFP General Secretary, I recall Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s mediatory, non-aligned foreign policy. Today’s world has multiple power blocs; we should pursue “friendship for all and enmity to none.”

¶ 12 Accordingly, while fostering close and friendly ties with India, Parliament must be informed of dealings. This Government long opposed secret agreements, calling them “sell-outs.” As an MP and member of the National Security Advisory Committee, I assert we have had no information on the Indo-Lanka defence agreement. Had there been a White Paper or consultation, we could have contributed our views.

¶ 13 I also note prior public criticisms made regarding linking power grids, oil and gas pipelines, currency linkages, cultural, air, land and sea connectivity with India. Having created public fear then, now entering agreements without consulting Parliament or stakeholders is shocking.

¶ 14 Therefore, withholding these agreements from Parliament violates MPs’ rights. I request that all agreements signed with India and China be immediately tabled and that adequate debate time be allocated.

¶ 15 Four days have passed with no information yet. Even under Article 14A(1)(a) and the Right to Information Act, we are unable to proceed. I request the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister to arrange for these to be placed before the House for debate.

¶ 16 Thank you, Hon. Deputy Speaker, for the time.