Government challenges BASL's 'threat' claim as row erupts in Parliament

A single word in a Bar Association letter set off an argument in Parliament on Thursday, after the government rejected the suggestion that it had threatened anyone over a proposed briefing for MPs.

The letter, dated August 19 from BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya to Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, withdrew the association from a session at which it was to have briefed all 225 members on the 22nd Amendment and appointments to the higher judiciary. It cited “the proceedings in Parliament today, i.e. 19.08.2026, and the position of the Government expressed threat” as its reason for seeking a deferral.

The exchange in the House

Health Minister Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa — identified by Daily Mirror in its report as Chief Government Whip — questioned the basis for that characterisation. He argued that the Leader of the House had done no more than set out parliamentary procedure and convention for convening all MPs, and that members routinely disagree in debate without it amounting to a threat.

“No one acted in a threatening manner. The remark affects the dignity of Parliament,” he said.

The real question, he said, was how remarks about procedure had come to be described as threats. Parliament had seen far more heated debates without any speech being formally labelled a threat in correspondence released to the media, and the government’s position was simply that a gathering of all 225 members must follow established rules.

Premadasa rejected that. He said government members had spoken in a threatening tone in the House on Wednesday, and that neither he nor Amarasuriya stood above any other citizen. “All citizens are equal,” he said, arguing Amarasuriya was entitled to state his view publicly whether or not it was politically convenient.

Then the word itself came into question

NewsFirst reported in a second piece that afternoon that the BASL had given conflicting accounts of its own letter within a few hours. Contacted at 1.10 p.m., Amarasuriya referred the outlet to the text. At 2.06 p.m. BASL Secretary Nalin De Silva said the letter did not refer to any threatening statement by the government. At 3.33 p.m. the newspaper Dinamina reported Amarasuriya as suggesting the disputed wording may have been “there at” rather than “threat”.

By 4.09 p.m. De Silva told NewsFirst that “threat” was the correct word. Dinamina reported shortly afterwards that Amarasuriya had called back to confirm the same.

The dispute leaves the substantive question — the amendment extending the retirement age of superior court judges — still unaddressed by the briefing that was called off.