The Speaker has rejected privilege complaints brought by Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and four other MPs over Parliament’s refusal to debate a no-confidence motion against him — ruling that scheduling House business is a procedural matter that cannot found a question of privilege.
The decision was reached under the Standing Orders and the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act No. 21 of 1953, in relation to requests the MPs submitted on 3 November, NewsFirst reported. The ruling was announced to the House by the Deputy Speaker.
Alongside the Opposition Leader, the complaints were brought by MPs Dayasiri Jayasekara, Mano Ganesan, Mujibur Rahman and Chanuka Madugoda. They had written to the Speaker alleging a breach of parliamentary privileges, protesting the decision not to allow a no-confidence motion against Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne to be taken up for debate.
The grounds of the ruling
The determination rests on a distinction between procedure and privilege.
Issuing notices on the Order Paper under the Standing Orders, and the scheduling of parliamentary business by the Committee on Parliamentary Business, are procedural matters — and therefore cannot be breaches of parliamentary privilege under Standing Order 118.
The ruling further states that, in line with a determination the Speaker issued on 6 October 2026 and with established parliamentary convention, administrative decisions on the conduct of House business and the allocation of time cannot be challenged through questions of privilege.
It also notes that the deadline granted for the amendment and resubmission of the no-confidence motion had already lapsed.
That last point is the most consequential thing in the filing. It is the first report this desk has seen that the revised motion was subject to a deadline at all, and that the deadline has passed.
What the MPs had argued
The complaints were lodged during the sitting of 3 November — the day the motion had been listed for debate.
Parliament saw tense scenes after Deputy Speaker Rizvie Salih declined to allow several privilege issues to be raised immediately, Daily FT reported. Salih told the House he had received copies of the submissions after 9.00 a.m. and could not permit them to be raised until he had examined them. He assured members the issues would be examined and a response provided.
Friday’s ruling is that response.
Premadasa argued that the refusal to take up the motion violated parliamentary privileges and democratic principles, and that blocking the debate raised concerns over the Speaker’s impartiality, the independence of Parliament and the rights of Opposition MPs. He said the Speaker was constitutionally obliged to act impartially and to give Government and Opposition members fair opportunity to exercise their parliamentary rights, and he called for an investigation into whether the refusal was a breach of privilege.
Daily FT reports Premadasa’s account of the motion’s passage: 50 charges, signed by 44 Opposition MPs, handed to the Secretary-General on 9 October 2026, entered in Parliament’s Order Book on 12 October 2026, and later rejected following a decision of the Committee on Parliamentary Business.
Those figures match what this desk recorded when the motion was handed over on 9 October.
A dispute now six weeks old
| Date | Stage |
|---|---|
| 26 September | The SJB says it is considering a motion |
| 9 October | The motion is handed to the Secretary-General with 44 signatures and 50 allegations |
| 12 October | Entered in the Order Book |
| 27 October | Rejected on sub judice grounds; a revised motion is listed for 3 November |
| 3 November | No debate. Opposition MPs protest in the chamber; privilege complaints submitted |
| 6 November | The privilege complaints are rejected; the resubmission deadline has lapsed |
On 3 November, Chief Government Whip Nalinda Jayatissa told Parliament the Opposition had failed to submit the motion in accordance with the Standing Orders — “Submit a no-confidence motion in accordance with the Standing Orders. We are ready to defeat it” — and that sub judice matters could not be included. Friday’s ruling does not address that objection. It addresses only whether the scheduling decision can be challenged as a breach of privilege, and holds that it cannot.
Not reported
The filing does not name the Deputy Speaker who announced the ruling, state when the resubmission deadline fell or how long it ran, or say whether the Opposition sought an extension. It does not give the text of the determination, say whether the five MPs’ complaints were disposed of on identical grounds, or report any Opposition response to the rejection.
It does not say what remains open to the Opposition procedurally — whether a fresh motion may be tabled, and on what terms — nor whether the Speaker took any part in a determination concerning a motion against himself. The Speaker has not commented publicly at any stage of this dispute.
On sourcing. NewsFirst is the only verified newsroom this desk found to have filed on Friday’s ruling. The Daily Mirror breaking rail and the Hiru News rail were both pulled after the ruling and carried no item on it; Ada Derana has blocked this desk on every route attempted. Daily FT is cited here for the 3 November sitting at which the complaints were lodged, which it reported directly — not for the ruling, which it predates. Readers should treat the terms of the determination as reported by a single outlet until a second confirms them.
