No-confidence votes: Why the Speaker was right

On November 14, 2018, Sri L a n k a ’ s Pa rliament was summoned to meet pursuant to a summons issued by the President. The proclamation dissolving Parliament which was issued a few days earlier was suspended by the Supreme Court, making it mandatory for the House to meet on Novembet 14, as previously decreed.

The start of the session was preceded by a meeting of party representatives where they were informed of the proposed motion of no-confidence against the President and the “Government” of new Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa.

No- confidence motions are admitted as “no- date” motions which are always given priority over other motions in the order paper. The challenge of a no- confidence is always met by a confident government in order to prove its legitimacy to govern the country.

By convention at the beginning of a new session of Parliament, the President would usually attend as the head of state and, had he done so, he would have been presiding and had full control of the proceedings. However, on this occasion, the President did not attend the session.

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, who presided on this day, allowed a request for Standing Orders to be suspended and for the no-confidence motion to be moved and passed with a “voice vote”.

For those who argue that a voice vote is invalid, I quote below the relevant Standing Order, S.O.47: (1) The question shall be put by the Speaker and the votes may be taken by voices ,” Ayes” and “Noes”’ and the result may be declared by the Speaker.

(2) Any member who is not

agreeable with the decision of

five minutes and thereafter(a) a division shall be taken by counting the members, row by row, rising in their places in support or against the motion before the House;

(b) a division shall be taken by the use of the electronic vote recorder. The members shall press the appropriate button to indicate the decision of such member within the time period allowed by the Speaker

(c) a division shall be taken by the Secretary General asking each member separately as to how that member desires to vote and shall record the vo t e s accordingly.

Therefore, the voice vote is the first type of vote to be taken in Parliament. If anyone challenges a voice vote, he should ask for a division and any other method of voting would take place. The Hansard and video recordings on this day do not indicate that any member challenged the voice vote. This shows that the Speaker acted well within the Standing Orders. The orgy of hooliganism and thuggery as well as the damage caused to public property by some members are ample indication of the fact that the “Government” could not face a valid vote and was hell bent on disrupting the proceedings of the House.

Worse happenings were yet to come!

“government” physically attacked the Speaker and the police with chilli powder, water and furniture, the Sergeant- at- arms and the police officers guarded the Speaker at grave risk to themselves.

The Speaker then proceeded to suspend the Standing Orders and passed the amended no-confidence motion by a majority of votes with the “government” party once again not voting -- and this time, too, no one challenged the voice vote.

On both occasions the Speaker adhered to the Standing Orders even under the most frightening circumstances and he is being abused for following the rules. If the Speaker’s ruling is disputed, a motion of no-confidence could be brought against him. Violence and bawdy behaviour is the resort of those who are short of arguments and is the method of the gutter.

(The writer is a retired Secretary General of Parliament and former Ambassador to Austria)