Former President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), Saliya Pieris, PC, stated that there is no basis for claims made by certain factions that the Prime Minister and Cabinet could not have been sworn in prior to the meeting of Parliament, rendering their appointments legally invalid.

In a Facebook post, Pieris addressed the misconception, asserting that the view that the Prime Minister and Cabinet must wait until after the first meeting of Parliament to be sworn in is incorrect.

He further noted that, historically, following a General Election, the new Prime Minister and Cabinet have always been appointed and sworn in before the first meeting of Parliament.

“Prime Ministers J.R. Jayawardena, D.B. Wijetunga, and Chandrika Kumaratunga, along with their respective Cabinets, were sworn in prior to the first meeting of Parliament in 1977, 1989, and 1994, respectively. The same occurred with Ranil Wickremesinghe in December 2001, Mahinda Rajapaksa in April 2004, Ranil Wickremesinghe in August 2015, and Mahinda Rajapaksa in August 2020,” Pieris noted in his Facebook post.

Pieris further stated that even in the United Kingdom, ministers are appointed and function as members of the Cabinet prior to Parliament convening.

What Article 43 and 44 of the Constitution require are for the Prime Minister and Ministers to be Members of Parliament. A person becomes a Member of Parliament upon being declared elected. Article 63 says a Member of Parliament shall not sit or vote in Parliament unless he or she takes the oath. This means that even prior to taking oaths they are Members of Parliament. The requirement of an oath does not apply when MPs first enter Parliament and vote in the election of the Speaker which occurs prior to the oaths being administered to the new MPs, he added.