Members of Parliament representing the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and the Opposition have accused the government and the Speaker of House of obstructing a debate on a no-confidence motion against Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne, describing the move as contrary to democratic principles.

In a statement issued by the Opposition Leader’s Office in Parliament, opposition MPs rejected the government’s argument that the allegations contained in the motion were sub judice, or under judicial consideration, saying the justification was neither legally sound nor reasonable.

The statement also raised concerns over the use of a parliamentary report concerning the alleged disclosure of confidential information about the Speaker to the media. The Opposition questioned the appropriateness of the Speaker continuing to perform his duties while allegations against him were being examined.

The Opposition argued that the Speaker should step aside for the duration of any relevant inquiry, maintaining that submitting a no-confidence motion was an appropriate democratic response to the circumstances.

According to the statement, the motion was handed over to Parliament on October 9, 2026, and subsequently included in the parliamentary agenda on October 12.

The statement further said that, during a meeting of the Committee on Parliamentary Business on October 12, held in the Speaker’s absence and chaired by the Deputy Speaker, a proposal was made to seek the Attorney General’s opinion on whether the allegations in the motion conflicted with ongoing judicial proceedings.

However, the Opposition claimed that the motion had not been referred to the Attorney General, despite the understanding reached at the committee meeting.

The statement also referred to discussions at a party leaders’ meeting, alleging that the Speaker and the Government had subsequently indicated that obtaining the Attorney General’s opinion was unnecessary and that the motion could be reconsidered if the Opposition amended and resubmitted it.

The Opposition described the handling of the motion as an attempt to prevent parliamentary debate and called into question the Government’s commitment to democratic accountability.