Kiriella wants settlement in Parliament | Sunday Observer

Kiriella wants settlement in Parliament

The United National Party (UNP) had sought to bring in a No Confidence Motion against the Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and the new Government. Its MP Lakshman Kiriella said that the UNP is supported by both the TNA and the JVP.

Excerpts of his interview with the Sunday Observer follow.

SO: The UNP says that the new Government and the Prime Minister are unconstitutional.

But the newly appointed Ministers say that, it is very much in accordance with the Constitution. People are confused…

LK: The new Prime Minister and the Ministers were appointed without ascertaining whether this purported Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa has a majority in Parliament. Last Friday, in Parliament, 118 MPs gathered under the Chairmanship of the Speaker.

All 118 MPs stated that they will vote against Mahinda Rajapaksa asuming the role of Prime Minister. So it’s obvious that Mahinda Rajapaksa doesn’t have a majority.

SO: Contrary to that decision, a few members from the UNP have already joined the Government. Do you still believe that the UNP has a majority?

LK: Yes of course. As I told you clearly, there were 118 MPs at the Parliament meeting last Friday. TNA, JVP, Rishad, Hakeem, Hela Urumaya were all present.

SO: But the UPFA MPs said that some of the parliamentarians who participated in that meeting will also join them soon...

LK: I don’t think that’s correct. If they have the numbers they will just summon Parliament.

They continue to postpone the reconvening of Parliament as they don’t have the numbers.

SO: Now the UNP is getting ready for a No Confidence Motion against PM Rajapaksa. Doesn’t that imply that the UNP has accepted him as the Prime Minister?

LK: No. You’re wrong. You haven’t read the document carefully. It says the No confidence Motion is against the purported Prime Minister and purported Government.

SO: Even though the UNP keeps complaining about the situation, none of your party members have gone for the interpretation of the Supreme Court. It would have been the easiest way to solve the puzzle. Isn’t that so?

LK: Why do we need the interpretation of the Supreme Court while we have the majority in Parliament? The Supreme Court can’t solve this problem. This has to be settled in Parliament. 

Comments