Topic
Justice & Human Rights
2,079 speeches · 258 speakers
Party share
By the speaker's party · counts only, no scoring. "Unattributed" = speeches not resolved to an MP.
Most active on this topic
| # | Member | Speeches |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara, Attorney at Law, M.P. JJB | 162 |
| 2 | Hon. Sajith Premadasa, M.P. SJB | 96 |
| 3 | Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna, M.P. Independent Group 17 - Jaffna | 84 |
| 4 | Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney at Law, M.P. SJB | 79 |
| 5 | Hon. Ajith P. Perera, M.P. SJB | 71 |
| 6 | Hon. Ananda Wijepala, M.P. JJB | 67 |
| 7 | Hon. Mujibur Rahman, M.P. SJB | 60 |
| 8 | Hon. Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, M.P. JJB | 52 |
| 9 | Hon. Shanakiyan Rajaputhiran Rasamanickam, M.P. ITAK | 48 |
| 10 | Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa, M.P. JJB | 47 |
Speeches
2,079 on this topic- 11 September 2025 The Hon. Wijesiri Basnayake JJB AI summary Hon. Wijesiri Basnayake supported the amendments to the National Audit Act, No. 19 of 2018, and the related supplementary estimates, arguing that they aim to strengthen public sector audit governance, accountability, fiscal discipline, and the surcharge process. He placed the Bill in the context of Parliament’s constitutional control over public finance under Article 148, the role of the Auditor-General, and IMF-identified weaknesses following the 2023 programme. He also criticised past misuse of public funds and said the Government was seeking to correct public financial management through stronger audit and oversight mechanisms. National Audit (Amendment) Bill Second Reading and Supplementary Estimates Debate Read →
- 11 September 2025 The Hon. (Dr.) Nishantha Samaraweera JJB AI summary Hon. (Dr.) Nishantha Samaraweera supported the National Audit (Amendment) Bill, arguing that it restores and strengthens the Auditor-General’s powers after limitations under the National Audit Act No. 19 of 2018. He said the amendment would allow audit findings on misuse, corruption, waste and abuse of public funds to trigger legal and surcharge processes, including referrals to an Independent Surcharge Review Committee and, where necessary, action through appropriate authorities. He also outlined streamlined appeal procedures and safeguards where a Chief Accounting Officer is implicated, while criticizing the Opposition for misrepresenting the Bill and delaying the debate. National Audit (Amendment) Bill Second Reading and Supplementary Estimates Debate Read →
- 11 September 2025 The Hon. Hector Appuhamy SJB AI summary Hon. Hector Appuhamy called for a clear investigation into the release of two ice containers under the current Government, asking who authorized their release and whether other containers were also involved. He said the Opposition’s no-confidence motion was linked to demands for transparency on the Easter Sunday attack investigations, including disclosure of the Attorney-General’s report and the Cabinet Secretary’s report, and questioned unresolved matters such as alleged funding by Ibrahim. He accused the Government and the Speaker of denying MPs access to information and undermining parliamentary privileges, and urged a transparent programme to identify and punish those responsible for the Easter attacks. National Audit (Amendment) Bill Second Reading and Supplementary Estimates Debate Read →
- 11 September 2025 The Hon. Hector Appuhamy SJB AI summary Hon. Hector Appuhamy raised concerns about the National Audit (Amendment) Bill, arguing that the proposed Oversight Review Committee could undermine the independence and authority of the Auditor General’s Department and create uncertainty for public officers facing surcharges. He urged the Government to strengthen the audit framework without intimidating officials or weakening the State sector, and called for clear legal and administrative safeguards. He also criticized Government members’ conduct in Parliament, questioned the Prime Minister’s response to issues involving women MPs, and demanded answers on responsibility for the release of 323 containers. National Audit (Amendment) Bill Second Reading and Supplementary Estimates Debate Read →
- 11 September 2025 The Hon. (Dr.) Harini Amarasuriya JJB AI summary Hon. (Dr.) Harini Amarasuriya criticized the justification of a reaction to a woman’s speech by comparing it to victim-blaming narratives used against women facing violence. She argued that saying the response would not have occurred if the woman had not spoken further insults and blames the woman for the conduct directed at her. National Audit (Amendment) Bill Second Reading and Supplementary Estimates Debate Read →
- 11 September 2025 The Hon. Aravinda Senarath JJB AI summary Hon. Aravinda Senarath raised a privilege matter concerning legal action by Richardsons Technologies (Pvt) Ltd. against Dr. Roshani Dissanayake over evidence she gave before COPA on alleged irregularities in Colombo Municipal Council public-private partnership projects. He said the company’s letter of demand, Court of Appeal defamation application, and Colombo District Court damages suit challenge protections under the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act for witnesses before parliamentary committees. He requested that the matter be referred to the Committee on Ethics and Privileges to protect COPA’s privileges and the independence of parliamentary committee proceedings. Ministerial Statements and Privilege Question Read →
- 11 September 2025 The Hon. (Dr.) Harini Amarasuriya JJB AI summary The Hon. (Dr.) Harini Amarasuriya stated that the matter referred to is under investigation and that the Government will not interfere with the relevant authority or Commission. She said the complaint is being treated seriously and that action will be taken after the investigation is completed and recommendations are made. Ministerial Statements and Privilege Question Read →
- 11 September 2025 The Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna Independent Group 17 - Jaffna AI summary Asked why officials subject to a preliminary inquiry are not being removed from their posts to prevent bias. He urged that such a measure be recommended to ensure neutrality in the inquiry process. Ministerial Statements and Privilege Question Read →
- 11 September 2025 The Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna Independent Group 17 - Jaffna AI summary Ramanathan Archchuna raised a Standing Order 27(2) question to the Minister of Fisheries, Aquatic and Ocean Resources concerning alleged corruption and weak enforcement in the fisheries sector. He sought district-wise details of cases filed against illegal beach seine and purse seine fishing, information on meetings with fisher organizations and actions taken, and records of transfers in Northern and Eastern fisheries departments. He also asked whether the Minister would act on evidence relating to alleged bribery in sea cucumber farm approvals and a video concerning State land use, and requested project values, timelines, and proposals for fishery harbour developments at Mayiliddy and Kurikattuwan. Questions under Standing Order 27(2) and Ministerial Statements Read →
- 11 September 2025 Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara argued that questions on defence should be answered with clear parliamentary accountability when the President, as Minister of Defence, is absent. He said reliance on Article 46(2) regarding delegation of powers does not resolve the issue of responsibility in Parliament, and questioned the legal basis on which a Deputy Minister answers on the President’s behalf. He requested the Attorney-General’s report and the Secretariat’s report, and warned that preventing a No-Confidence Motion while allowing only a censure motion would set a problematic precedent for ministerial accountability. Procedural Matters and No-Confidence Motion Dispute Read →
- 11 September 2025 Hon. Sajith Premadasa - Leader of the Opposition SJB AI summary Hon. Sajith Premadasa urged the Speaker to permit a debate on the Easter Sunday attacks, invoking the 269 lives lost as the basis for granting the request. He framed the appeal as a matter of fairness and parliamentary necessity. Procedural Matters and No-Confidence Motion Dispute Read →
- 11 September 2025 Hon. Sajith Premadasa - Leader of the Opposition SJB AI summary Hon. Sajith Premadasa stressed that the public, especially the Catholic community and victims of the Easter attacks, are awaiting clarity on the truth behind the attacks. He said the proposed debate should focus on identifying the mastermind or masterminds responsible, and made a specific request in that context. Procedural Matters and No-Confidence Motion Dispute Read →
- 10 September 2025 The Hon. R.M. Jayawardhana - Deputy Minister of Trade, Commerce and Food Security JJB AI summary R.M. Jayawardhana stated that the lands in question are subject to a pending court case and were vested in the Department of Forest Conservation by a 2012 Gazette. He added that a previous Coordinating Committee decision had barred entry to the forest, and said these facts remain in effect. Adjournment Debate: Fair Guaranteed Price for Paddy Read →
- 10 September 2025 The Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna Independent Group 17 - Jaffna AI summary Hon. Ramanathan Archchuna said Northern voters had supported the Government because they believed it opposed repression, and argued that Tamil commemorations of Prabhakaran should be understood alongside Sinhala regard for Rohana Wijeweera. He alleged corruption in the North, including in Jaffna, and claimed the Government had failed to prosecute major fraud while filing 25 police cases against him after he exposed wrongdoing. He also criticized MPs who call for dissolving Parliament while enjoying parliamentary benefits, and demanded accountability for alleged misuse of state resources and politically motivated legal action. Debate: Presidents' Entitlements (Repeal) Bill - Second Reading Read →
- 10 September 2025 The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law - Deputy Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs JJB AI summary Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala referred to a reported letter of demand from Namal Rajapaksa and said he would contest any defamation action, raising questions he said he would pursue in cross-examination. Turning to the Presidents’ Entitlements Act, he argued that Act No. 4 of 1986 created benefits for former Presidents and widows beyond what the Constitution protected and that these entitlements had been abused through official residences and state property. Citing a recent Supreme Court judgment, he said only salary, allowances and pension are constitutionally protected, and supported the repeal as restoring equality before the law. Debate: Presidents' Entitlements (Repeal) Bill - Second Reading Read →
- 10 September 2025 The Hon. M. Nizam Kariapper, PC SJB AI summary Hon. M. Nizam Kariapper supported the view that the Bill repeals statutory entitlements under the Presidents’ Entitlements Act, No. 4 of 1986, but argued that it does not affect the President’s constitutional salary, pension and emoluments under Article 36. He raised concerns that the Bill lacks mechanisms to recover improperly used official residences or impose accountability, urging the Government to pursue legal action where state property or benefits were misused. He questioned the urgency given to this Bill compared with delays in holding Provincial Council elections and introducing broader constitutional and community-focused reforms, particularly affecting Tamil and Muslim communities. Debate: Presidents' Entitlements (Repeal) Bill - Second Reading Read →
- 10 September 2025 The Hon. (Ms.) Lakmali Hemachandra, Attorney-at-Law JJB AI summary Hon. Lakmali Hemachandra supported the repeal of the Presidents’ Entitlements Act of 1986, stating that the Bill removes post-retirement benefits such as official residences, secretarial allowances, and widows’ entitlements, but does not affect former Presidents’ security. She argued that the measure fulfils the NPP’s policy commitment to abolish excessive presidential privileges and responds to public demands for equality, accountability, and a new political culture. Citing Supreme Court rulings involving former Presidents Maithripala Sirisena and Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, she said past use of office for personal benefit justified legislation to prevent misuse of public power and protect democracy. Debate: Presidents' Entitlements (Repeal) Bill - Second Reading Read →
- 10 September 2025 The Hon. D.V. Chanaka SLPP AI summary D.V. Chanaka said his side did not oppose reducing privileges or entitlements for Presidents, Ministers, or MPs, noting that previous governments had also curtailed benefits such as vehicle permits. However, he argued that former Presidents and national leaders who face threats because of actions taken in office, particularly Mahinda Rajapaksa, must continue to receive adequate security. He alleged that the Government was targeting former security officials, including a former Navy Commander, through fabricated cases based on LTTE-linked testimony, and said he was tabling a Court of Appeal writ order relating to alleged pressure on an OIC to give statements. Debate: Presidents' Entitlements (Repeal) Bill - Second Reading Read →
- 10 September 2025 The Hon. D.V. Chanaka SLPP AI summary Hon. D.V. Chanaka objected to allegations made under parliamentary privilege against Namal Rajapaksa, particularly claims linking him to drug networks. He stated that Rajapaksa had taken legal action and sent a letter of demand, and challenged government members to repeat the allegations outside Parliament where privilege would not apply. He said further legal steps would be pursued against relevant government members, including those connected to the police portfolio. Debate: Presidents' Entitlements (Repeal) Bill - Second Reading Read →
- 10 September 2025 The Hon. M.K.M. Aslam JJB AI summary Hon. M.K.M. Aslam supported the repeal of the Presidents’ Entitlements Act, arguing that it is intended to change the political culture by ending excessive post-retirement privileges for former Presidents while maintaining their security and pensions. He said public funds and state property should not be used for personal benefit, and that rulers should be accountable under the law like public servants and ordinary citizens. Referencing past allegations and events involving former Presidents, he framed the Bill as part of a broader mandate to protect public resources and establish equal accountability, not as an act of revenge. Debate: Presidents' Entitlements (Repeal) Bill - Second Reading Read →