Entertainment of a Motion a Speaker’s Duty

By Sanath Jayatilaka senior attorney-at-law

An extremely important and relevant question arose which matter is of the utmost importance to those who are concerned about and with the impeachment proceedings.

Impeachment proceedings commence with the Speaker of Parliament entertaining a motion signed by a majority of the total number of Members of Parliament (including those not present) presenting a motion to that effect. The said standing order reads:

78A. [(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Standing Orders, where notice of a resolution for the presentation of an address to the President for the removal of a Judge from office is given to the Speaker in accordance with Article 107 of the Constitution, the Speaker shall entertain such resolutionand place it on the Order Paper of Parliament but such resolution shall not be proceeded with until after the expiration of a period of one month from the date on which the Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order has reported to Parliament.

" Although the charges ought to be a matter of confidence there had been publication and according to the publication there are fourteen (14) charges "

To my mind the Speaker carries a huge responsibility and should not deal with the entertainment as we do in normal life when dealing with a social occasion.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary – “entertain” is
1. to bear in mind or consider; esp. to give judicial consideration to – the court then entertained the motion for continuance.
Of course he gives further meanings –
2. to amuse or please-
3. to receive in person as a guest to provide hospitality
4. Parliamentary Law - To recognise and state (a motion) to receive and take into consideration – the chair will entertain the motion.

Thus the Hon. Speaker ought to have examined the charges. Although the charges ought to be a matter of confidence there had been publication and according to the publication there are fourteen (14) charges .

If the Hon Speaker had “entertained” the motion as expected and required by the Standing Order he would have inquired how absolutely confidential information provided by the Chief Justice in her declaration in terms of the Declaration of Assets Law, access to which could have been only by a due process through the President, the Bribery Commission and may be by an order of court, reached the signatories.

Had he done so he would have referred the signatories what he cannot act ie “entertain” the matter and referred them to their respective legal remedy as provided for by law (Vide Sansoni J’s judgment on the Paddy Lands Act). Then on “investigation” by the correct authority the Chief Justice would have been charged and if the charges are proved, they would have had a “proved misconduct” in their hands to support a motion for impeachment.
Hence Chamal Rajapaksa has failed in his statutory duty and an order in the nature of a writ would be available to any party interested.