Speaker of House Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne today (25) announced to Parliament that he is not in a position to accept the No-Confidence Motion submitted against Deputy Minister of Defence, Major General (Retd.) Aruna Jayasekara by a group of Parliamentarians, citing Parliament procedures.

The motion was signed by the Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and 31 other members representing the opposition.

During the commencement of the Parliament sitting today, Speaker Wickramaratne said he has already announced his decision pertaining to the No-Confidence Motion which cannot be appealed or challenged according to Standing Order 76(1).

The Speaker said despite existing Parliamentary provisions, considering the requests made by Members of Parliament, he decided to clarify his decision on the motion.

Full announcement of the Speaker as follows:

I wish to make this announcement in furtherance to the announcement made by me on 08.09.2025 on the Motion titled the ‘No-Confidence Motion’, submitted by a group of 32 Members of Parliament in the Opposition including the Hon. Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, on 12.08.2025 against Hon. Major General (Rtd.) Aruna Jayasekera, M.P., Deputy Minister of Defence.

At the outset, I wish to remind this House the Standing Order 76(1) which states that the Speaker in Parliament shall be responsible for the observance of the rules of order in Parliament and his/her decision upon any point of order shall not be open to appeal and shall not be reviewed by Parliament except upon a substantive motion made after notice.

However, considering the queries raised in Parliament, I wish to further substantiate the factors highlighted in the previous announcement for ruling the said Motion out of Order.

The 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka and the Standing Orders of Parliament are silent on moving a No-Confidence Motion against an individual Cabinet Minister, Deputy Minister or any other holder of portfolios. The only existing provision on No-Confidence Motions is the Article 49(2) of the Constitution which provides only to move a No-Confidence Motion against a Government.

However, No-Confidence Motions have been moved against the Prime Minister, Individual Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers, notwithstanding the said silence in the Constitution and the Standing Orders, thus questioning the legal basis of such precedence.

It is noted that, in the parliamentary context, the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chairman of Committees, Leader of the House of Parliament, Chief Government Whip, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Opposition Whip are considered Parliamentary office-bearers, and that a substantive Motion of this nature may appropriately be brought against them.

I wish to emphasize that in the international context, No-Confidence Motions have been allowed only in respect of the Government/ Council of Ministers as a whole (Erskine May, ‘Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament’, 25th Ed. and M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher, ‘Practice and Procedure of Parliament’, 8th Ed.). Further M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher highlights that a Motion of No-Confidence can be moved only against the Council of Ministers as a whole and not against any individual Minister as per the Indian constitutional provisions regarding the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha.

Similarly, the Articles 42, 43 and 44 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, provides for the collective and individual ministerial responsibility of the Cabinet of Ministers.

In Sri Lanka at present, Deputy Ministers have been appointed under Article 46(1) of the Constitution to assist the Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers. However, the Ministers of the Cabinet of the present Government acting under Article 46(2) of the Constitution, have not delegated any power or duty pertaining to any subject or function to the Deputy Ministers. Nevertheless, I wish to place on record that the Deputy Ministers function in terms of Standing Order 32(2) on behalf of the Ministers, in compliance with Article 46(1) of the Constitution and read with Article 74 of the Constitution.

Due to aforesaid reasons, I rule that the Motion is out of order in terms of Standing Order 27(3).

In the alternate, I wish to note that incidental criticism of conduct of Members of Parliament or particularly to Members in their capacity as office holders in the House of Commons including the Speaker is permitted only through a substantive Motion (Erskine May, ‘Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament’, 25th Ed.), and in the UK practice censure Motions can be tabled criticizing a Government policy or a Minister. M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher (‘Practice and Procedure of Parliament’, 8th Ed.) states that Censure Motions can be moved against the Council of Ministers or an individual Minister or a group of Ministers for their failure to act or not to act or for their policy and may express regret, indignation or surprise of the House at the failure of the Minister or Ministers.

Accordingly, I wish to inform this House to explore the possibility of submitting a substantive Motion instead of the current Motion in issue, in view of the national importance of the matters relating to the Easter Sunday Attack stated therein and as opined by the Attorney General, the specific facts in the Motion has no direct bearing to the cases pending before Courts.