The news that dominated the media last week was the No Confidence Motion (NCM) moved against Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena by the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) with the support of other opposition parties. The NCM was defeated comfortably but attracted considerable interest.
Speaker Abeywardena is among the senior most parliamentarians in the current Parliament, having entered the legislature 
in 1983. He began his political career in the United National Party (UNP) but fell out of favour with then leader J.R. Jayewardene after opposing the 1987 Indo-Lanka Accord.
However, he left the UNP only after the Democratic United National Front (DUNF) was formed by Lalith Athulathmudali and Gamini Dissanayake. He was elected as the Opposition Leader of the Southern Provincial Council in 1993. Later, he joined the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).
Ministerial positions
Abeywardena went on become the Chief Minister of the Southern Province, a position he held from 1994 to 2000. Thereafter, he entered the Parliament after the 2000 General Election. Having resigned from Parliament, he was again appointed the Chief Minister of the Southern Province until 2001.
Speaker Abyewardena returned to Parliament at the 2001 General Election and has been a Member of Parliament holding various positions since then. He has held the portfolios of Cultural Affairs and National Heritage, Agriculture, Parliamentary Affairs as well as Industries and Commerce.
The main reason motivating the opposition to sponsor a NCM against the Speaker was his actions in endorsing the Online Safety Bill. The opposition maintains that the endorsed Bill did not incorporate all the amendments suggested by the Supreme Court when it determined its constitutionality.
Since the NCM was being explored another development occurred. That was Speaker Abeywardena using his casting vote at the Constitutional Council to appoint Deshabandu Tennakoon as the Inspector General of Police (IGP) after serving a three-month period acting in that position.
Of the nine members of the Constitutional Council, four had endorsed Tennakoon and two had opposed it. Two members had abstained. Speaker Abeywardena used his casting vote to appoint Tennakoon after concluding that the two abstentions counted as votes opposing the appointment.
Main arguments
The opposition claims that, since the Speaker is entitled to use the casting vote only when votes for and against a nominee are equal, he erred in making this decision. This was among the main arguments put forward against Speaker Abeywardena during the three-day long debate on the NCM.
With the government enjoying a simple majority in Parliament there was no doubt that the NCM against Speaker Abeywardena would be defeated. Nevertheless, there was interest in observing the voting patterns of political parties and MPs as they could reflect shifting political loyalties.
At the final count, the NCM was defeated by 117 votes to 75 votes after a three-day debate. There was speculation that a three-day debate was allowed, rather than the two-day debate that was originally planned, to allow ministers and MPs who were overseas, to return to the country for the vote.
Notably, former Minister Keheliya Rambukwella, now in prison under remand custody, came to Parliament to cast his vote in support of the Speaker. Also voting against the NCM was Angajan Ramanathan of the SLFP, when the party had taken a decision to vote in support of the NCM.
Opposition parties, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), the Jathika Jana Balavegaya (JJB), Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi and ‘independent’ MPs of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), including Wimal Weerawansa, Udaya Gammanpila and Prof G.L. Peiris voted in favour of the motion.
Democratic values
After the conclusion of the debate, Speaker Abeywardena made a statement in Parliament. He said he always strived to uphold democratic values. He recalled how, during the political unrest in 2022, some groups wanted him to assume the Presidency after the resignation of Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
The NCM did add some drama to activities in Parliament but its eventual outcome was predictable. There was less certainty in the deliberations between President Ranil Wickremesinghe and the SLPP’s political strategist Basil Rajapaksa who met again to discuss the way forward for the government.
Rajapaksa has strongly conveyed the stance of the SLPP that it prefers for a General Election to be conducted first. Rajapaksa’s argument is that, if a Presidential Election is held first, the party that wins that poll will secure an undue advantage at the General Election, resulting in a lop-sided Parliament.
Critics in the Opposition have pointed out that SLPP did not complain when it secured a near two-thirds majority at the last General Election, adopting the same strategy. They claim that Rajapaksa’s argument only confirms his lack of confidence for the party’s prospects at the next major elections.
Following discussions between President Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa, former President and SLPP leader Mahinda Rajapaksa also publicly expressed support for a General Election to be held first, indicating that there was no difference of opinion among the SLPP leadership on this issue.
“We’re ready for any election. The best course of action is what Basil has proposed, to have the General Election first followed by the presidential election,” the former President said. However, the President is yet to commit to this and is due to discuss this with his own party, the UNP.
In as much as the SLPP stating its preference for a General Election to be conducted first, the party has now indicated that it will be willing to endorse President Wickremesinghe as a ‘common’ candidate for the Presidential Election, if he heeds the SLPP’s request for a General Election, observers said.
Controversial remarks
The other major issue that took the country by surprise last week was a statement by former President Maithripala Sirisena. Speaking to the media in Kandy, he claimed that he was aware of the mastermind behind the deadly 2019 April Easter terror attacks that cost 269 civilian lives.
Sirisena said he was prepared to reveal details in confidence to a Court of law, provided that the confidentiality would be retained. Naturally, these comments ignited controversy and led to considerable public anger, even as the fifth anniversary of the incident approaches in a few weeks.
It will be recalled that Sirisena was President at the time of the attacks. It was he who appointed first a committee to inquiry into the attacks soon after they occurred and later, a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry. The attacks were also probed by a Parliamentary Select Committee.
Ironically, when the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry which investigated the attacks submitted its final report, it castigated Sirisena for negligence and recommended action against him. At the time the report was submitted, Sirisena had left office and Gotabaya Rajapaksa was President.
Later, the attacks were also scrutinised by the Supreme Court when several fundamental rights applications were submitted to Court. Its findings also found Sirisena, among several others, to be negligent and ordered him to pay Rs. 100 million in compensation which he has said he cannot afford.
While the Catholic church led by Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith has repeatedly expressed its dissatisfaction regarding the way investigations into the Easter attacks have been handled, there was further controversy when Britain’s Channel 4 network suggested it was staged for political gain.
Call for interrogation
It is against such a backdrop that former President Sirisena made his comments. Soon after, there were many calls for his detention and interrogation, the former on the grounds of allegedly concealing evidence. Formal complaints were also lodged against him at the Criminal Investigations Department.
A day later, former President Sirisena clarified his position. He then stated that the information he had was only received three weeks ago. Around the same time, Minister of Public Security Tiran Alles directed IGP Deshabandu Tennakoon to ensure that a statement from Sirisena was recorded.
Addressing the media regarding the issue, IGP Tennakoon stated that procedures do not require the immediate arrest of individuals willing to provide information regarding the perpetrators of the attacks. On Monday, Former President Sirisena provided a statement to Police over nearly six hours.
The content of former President Sirisena’s statement remains confidential at this time. It will become the subject of much speculation. With the fifth anniversary of attacks only weeks ahead and national elections a few months away, the attacks could again become an election issue, just as it was in 2019.
Sri Lanka is inching its way towards the Sinhala and Tamil New Year- which has its own dispute about auspicious times. It is likely that more controversies- political and otherwise- will be hard to avoid as the country also approaches at least one and quite possibly two national elections this year.
