All civilized sections of society, no doubt, would welcome moves underway to prosecute Parliamentarians who misbehave in the House. According to the main story of an English weekly, those MPs who conducted themselves appallingly in Parliament during the recent political crisis could face Supreme Court action .The story further adds that the Attorney General is to be called upon to study the evidence (from video footage) and look into the possibility of the errant MPs being brought before the Supreme Court and tried under the Parliament Privileges Act. Under the Act, the Supreme Court can exercise jurisdiction in cases of breach of privileges. A Committee headed by Deputy Speaker Ananda Kumarasiri to look into the happenings in the chamber of Parliament of November 14 and 15 has already finalized its report which will be handed over to the Speaker on his return from abroad, to be sent to the Attorney General to examine the possibility of prosecuting the errant MPs.
The other day in these spaces we argued about the futility in slapping a mere suspension of sittings of an MP for grievous misconduct inside the hallowed precincts of the August assembly, by way of a punishment. We also questioned the effectiveness of eliciting an apology from an MP who creates mayhem in the House. This is after Parliamentarian Arundhika Fernando who created virtual sacrilege after sitting in the chair of the Speaker and held a mock session amidst the pandemonium, the other day, tendered a ‘qualified’ apology to the Chair. This is what we had to say; ‘‘the question that arises is, can a MP who brings Parliament to ridicule in this fashion getaway by merely tendering an apology? Not long ago we had MP Wimal Weerawansa, who cast aspersions at the Chair, being suspended for two weeks from Parliament by way of punishment. Certainly what Arundhika Fernado did was much more serious, nay scandalous. The Speaker’s sanctum, as those familiar with Parliamentary traditions are aware, is sacrosanct and anyone who defiles the Chair is guilty of a very serious offence where the most stringent punishment is called for and that which cannot be wished away by an apology.”
Now that it has dawned on the authorities that enough is enough it is hoped that the Supreme Court would deal fittingly against those who are under the impression that Parliament is a plaything to do as they please. It is also fitting that the highest court of the land has been called into adjudicate on the conduct of the MPs who are after all the lawmakers of the country. Being lawmakers they cannot be seen to be in breach of the law themselves. The courts, therefore, should be the ideal forum to decide whether an MP is fit to be a lawmaker. What was witnessed during the two days of that black November in Parliament was much more than a breach of the law. It was a frontal assault on civilized behaviour as accepted by society. Hence the need for intervention by a court of law rather than a mere rap on the knuckles that has hitherto been the norm for those MPs guilty of misconduct.
There is also reason for firm deterrent action against the current crop of MPs who misbehave. Waiting in the wings to enter the August assembly is their progeny and siblings, now comfortably ensconced in the provincial councils and local government bodies. It goes without saying that bad blood runs in the family and similar dramas by the next of kin cannot be discounted altogether.
Of course the new move is bound to attract protests by our lawmakers or the more volatile amongst them. These elements will argue that what happens in Parliament is outside the jurisdiction of the courts of law citing the precedent that existed dating back to the days Anura Bandaranaike was Speaker. It is in this backdrop that another news report states that the Government has decided to introduce a new set of laws aimed at protecting the honour and dignity of the House and enforcing discipline over legislators, in the aftermath of the horrendous incidents witness in Parliament .Here too the matter is bound to run into opposition from those mischief makers who revel in creating scenes in the House for the benefit of the cameras.
This is not to say that MPs should disport glum faces in Parliament and merely go through the motions in adopting laws. Parliament, as all would agree, should be a lively forum where the people’s problems and grievances should be aired in convincing fashion that would naturally generate heat and passion. Even in the immediate post independence days Parliament debates were lively affairs laced with wit and humour, and parry and thrust in the true Parliamentary traditions and there were times when MPs crossed the Red Line and duly penalized.
But by no stretch of the imagination can the events that unfolded during the recent crisis days in Parliament can be endorsed any right thinking member of the public. It is this type conduct that Parliament needs the court’s intervention to halt.
Add new comment