Attorney-at-Law on Parliamentary privileges

by Anuradha KODAGODA

Opposition MP Lakshman Kiriella told a daily newspaper recently that abductions and disappearances had become a part of daily life in Sri Lanka. A certain woman had told him that when she had gone to the police station to complain about her son's abduction, she found the same person in the police station who had come to abduct her son. Following that statement of UNP MP Lakshman Kiriella,Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa said that he sought further details on the matter for investigation and as usual Kiriella tried to take cover under Parliamentary Privileges as many MPs often resort to.

It is important to make the public aware of what is meant by 'Parliamentary Privileges'.

Attorney-at-Law, Indika Perera said, "Parliamentary privilege is the total of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each Member of Parliament collectively and individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the general law.

Certain rights and immunities such as freedom from arrest or freedom of speech belong primarily to individual members of each House and exist because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members. Other rights and immunities such as the power to punish for contempt and the power to regulate its own constitution belong primarily to each House as a collective body, for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.

Fundamentally, however, it is only as a means to the effective discharge of the collective functions of the House that the individual privileges are enjoyed by members," he said.

"Also Privileges of Parliament do not place a Member of Parliament on a footing different from that of an ordinary citizen in the matter of the application of laws, unless there are good and sufficient reasons in the interest of Parliament itself to do so," he said.

"According to the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges (Amendment) Act No. 27 (1997). An act declares and defines the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of the members thereof; to secure freedom of speech and debate or proceedings on Parliament; To provide for the punishment of breaches of the privileges of Parliament; and to give protection to persons employed in the publication of the reports, papers, minutes, votes or proceedings of Parliament."

"However, it doesn't mean that anybody who enjoys these Parliamentary Privileges can abuse it and cover their selves because they are Parliament Privileged. In the UK after 1979 more than 10 Members of Parliament had been "poisoned" due to abuse and misuse of Parliament Privileges. The Parliamentary Powers and Privileges (Amendment) Act No. 27 of 1997 clearly states that if somebody, even those who are covered by Parliament Privileges, when it comes to undermining national security or jeopardising the ongoing military operation or undermining foreign relations would be liable. Therefore, the recent statement by MP Kiriella though he is Privileged cannot abuse because he should understand that there are certain limitations for Parliament Privileges too," he said.

"On the other hand Parliamentary Privileges are only compared to the parameters of Parliament. Being a responsible citizen and as a senior Parliamentarian and a lawyer Kiriella should be aware of these and therefore should be more responsible when he makes of controversial statements which threaten national security in the country," he said.