Speaker upholds MP Farook’s position on privilege over Mannar magistrate incident

Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa yesterday ruled that nobody has the authority to question about the statements made by Parliamentarians in Parliament and if questioned it is a breach of parliamentary privileges.

Rajapaksa made this point when UPFA MP for Vanni district Hunais Farook claimed that his Parliamentary privileges were violated because the Mannar Magistrate reprimanded him when he appeared in Court as an attorney.

Farook raising the privilege issue in Parliament yesterday claimed that when on 31 July he appeared before court with five other lawyers on behalf of a client (a fellow Minister), the Mannar Magistrate reprimanded him referring to a statement he had made earlier in Parliament

 “Contrary to the usual hearing procedure the magistrate called us into his chamber and asked whether I took part in the protests held in Mannar and whether I made a statement against him in Parliament,” Farook said in Parliament.  The MP had replied saying he was appearing before the Magistrate as a counsel for his client and didn’t wish to discuss extraneous matters. The MP alleged that the Magistrate frowned and stared at him at which point Magistrate was told his conduct wasn’t proper in front of a counsel. Thereafter the Magistrate had allegedly being vociferous and said he knows how to conduct himself and doesn’t need advise.

“The conduct of this Magistrate clearly is affront to Parliament and break of privilege of a member of parliament,” MP Farook said in Parliament and requested the Speaker to inquire as a fuardian of the rights and privilege of MPs. Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe also speaking in Parliament drew the House’s attention to Standing Order 7 and argued that sub judiciary comes into effect as the House cannot question a judicial officer.

Wickremesinghe said that while the MP’s statements are covered by Parliamentary privileges the speaker should also inquire whether the MP’s earlier statement regarding the magistrate is a breach of standing orders as a Parliamentarian cannot criticize the acts of the judiciary except by bringing in a substantive motion  “Since the matter is also a sub-judice issue there the Speaker should inquire whether the MP has in fact criticized the acts of the judiciary” Wickremesinghe pointed out.