I was asked to take over power unconstitutionally during crisis – Speaker

Eventhough there were many requests locally and internationally to take over the power illegally and unconstitutionally in violation of the Constitution during the political crisis of 2022, I rejected all those offers in keeping with the best traditions of the democracy and refrained from grabbing power by violating the Constitution, Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena said in Parliament yesterday making a special statement.

He said that certain parties conspired to establish an illegal government in an anti-constitutional manner through me during the struggle and turn the country into Libya or Afghanistan.

However, the plan of paralyzing the democratic government by these people failed due to my unchanging position.

He said that there were various strong forces among the people who were forced to establish a government during the last struggle in an anti-state and anti-constitutional manner. The aim of some of them was not to alleviate the rising problem or to protect the country, but to establish an illegal government through me and turn our country into a Libya or Afghanistan.

The result was that I was invited for the Presidency when the Presidency of this country became vacant. However, what I did was to clearly reject not only the invitations received locally but also internationally and emphasised to everyone who invited me the urgent need I had to protect the supreme constitution.

When they couldn’t change my opinion, some people surrounded my house and even threatened to endanger my life. Even today I am honestly shocked that there were popular monks as well as other religious leaders among them.

In the midst of these threats, former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa called me and asked me about the process of assigning power to the Speaker. I was well aware of the danger, if the country runs without a Prime Minister, a Cabinet, and if it is not possible to appoint a new President within a month. I was also well aware of the risk if small groups of gangs took over the local administration when the entire country runs without law.

At the last meeting of the party leaders on July 13, I was the only one who stayed in this building until the last moment when the party leaders quickly left the area, due to the dangerous situation around Parliament as some people came very close to destroying the Parliament. But Fortunately , I was able to prevent their attempts and stop a great destruction. Even in this dark period of Sri Lankan history, my only determination was to somehow protect and maintain the Constitution and the country for future generations. At that time of crisis, I cannot forget the help given by the General Secretary of the Parliament led by staff and Sergeant-at-arms Narendra Fernando. Steps were taken to protect the mace in the face of the danger of setting Parliament on fire. Therefore, arrangements were made to quickly remove it from the Parliament building if necessary. I would also like to inform that the plan to make the state dysfunctional has been thwarted in view of my unchanging position. If not, I emphasised that the Opposition would not be able to bring a Motion of No Confidence today.

Since the day I was unanimously appointed to the post of Speaker, I have worked with my utmost energy and conscience for the sake of parliamentary democracy and the existence of the Republic of Sri Lanka. My political party is the people of this country. In the time management of the Parliament, I changed the traditional time rule of 80 percent to the ruling party and 20 percent to the opposition, But, I gave an additional 20 percent to the Opposition.

I have seen some constantly accusing me of taking decisions due to the pressure exerted on me by the President.It is true that the President is a long time friend of mine. However, we had two completely different positions when amendments were proposed to the Constitution. Eventhough he is a friend of mine and although we have done some work for the country together, he did not put any pressure on me as the chairman of the Constitutional Assembly after he became the executive of the country.

However, my only concern is that the nearly Rs.45 million has been spent unnecessary for this three day debate without spending time to meet the aspirations of tax-burdened and hard-living citizens as public representatives.

I would also like to express my thanks to all those who voted for and against and abstain from participating in the debate on the motion of no confidence which was debated for three days.

First of all, I would like to answer the allegation regarding the appointment of the Inspector General of Police. In any country, positions such as the Inspector General of Police, the Commanders of the Armed Forces, and the Secretary of Defence are directly related to the national security of that country. No one can forget about the Easter Sunday attack in 2019. I would also like to draw your attention to the Court decision given by the Supreme Court, regarding the proper bearing of the responsibilities of national security. It has been revealed that taking the first decisions before causing any incident and implementing those decisions should be done at earliest and not doing the responsibility and duty in the right way can lead to serious consequences. Therefore, everyone will agree with me that the appointment of the Inspector General of Police is a major factor that directly affects national security.

The Constituent Assembly is a decision-making body for the very purpose of its establishment. It is my feeling that such an institution, acting decisively and without opinion in such a situation, is deliberately endangering national security.

In addition, when the Constituent Assembly met on February 26, I emphasised the need and importance of appointing a permanent Inspector General of Police. Thus, a person even with little knowledge, regardless of legal knowledge,can understand the gravity of the letter which I sent to the President that I have not violated the constitution at all, and I have not made any legal interpretation. If someone says that I did not vote at that time and later declared my vote is a distortion of the truth. At that time, the vote can be given only if the two who abstained from voting are interpreted as opposition. As the Speaker, I do not have the authority to make such an interpretation.

Therefore, I have only informed the President that if some members bear a decision that is not mentioned in the Constitution, is interpreted as opposition, then can give my absolute right to vote in favor of it. He was informed in this way because he has a special power to get the legal interpretation from the Supreme Court or the Attorney General at any time in this regard. Therefore, this allegation is baseless. As this is a matter before the Court, I will not explain it further.

Secondly, in relation to the allegation that the Online Safety Bill was passed contrary to the recommendations given by the Supreme Court, I request the people and media organisations to view the recorded footage of the Parliament live broadcast on January 24, 2024 from 5.20 to 6.45 pm through the Parliament website.

It is clear how I gave the opportunity to the opposition MPs to present their views and objections and how I allowed their demands to go to a vote. Also, when the opposition said that certain clauses were contrary to the Supreme Court order, I also paid attention to it. Then the ruling party forwarded the approval of the Legislature to the Assembly. I also told Opposition MPs to discuss with officials of the Attorney General’s Department who were sitting in the boxes, if there was a problem with the relevant amendments. The scenes are recorded. After the Bill was read and passed for the third time, the Opposition again demanded a vote and it was in the videos.

The constitution does not give any power to a speaker to introduce, accept or reject motions regarding a Parliamentary Bill. It is entirely the power of the Members of Parliament. However, after the passage of this Act, I obtained a special certificate from the Attorney General that the provisions of the Act have been drafted in such a way that the provisions of the Act are not violated. Then I signed the Act after that. I would like to emphasise that there is no provision in the constitution for me to delay the signing of an act when such a certificate is received.

The post I was asked to take over power unconstitutionally during crisis – Speaker appeared first on DailyNews.