The Supreme Court today issued an interim order suspending the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers to allow former President Maithripala Sirisena to continuously use the residence he currently uses, located at Paget Road.
This order will be effective until the final determination of this Fundamental Rights petition.
Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Preethi Padman Surasena, Justice Yasantha Kodagoda and Justice Mahinda Samayawardena made this order in response to a Fundamental Rights petition filed by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu.
The Supreme Court further issued an interim order preventing the respondents from acting in terms of the cabinet decision dated 15th October 2019.
Delivering the order regarding the interim relief, Justice Preethi Padman Surasena observed that this Interim Order must be operative after four weeks from today (29).
Counsel Suren Fernando appearing for the petitioner submitted to the Court that it is wrong for the Cabinet of Ministers to decide on the benefits of a retiring President before he ceases to hold office. Suren Fernando argued that this cabinet decision had been taken violating the accepted procedure set out in the law.
However, President’s Counsel Faiz Mustapha appearing for the former President argued that there is no warrant for issuing an interim relief as the relevant cabinet decision was later on endorsed by Parliament.
He further argued that this residence is an ideal place for the former President when considering security reasons.
The Supreme Court had earlier granted leave to proceed with this application in terms of Article 12(1) of the constitution. The petition was fixed for argument on May 18.
In their Petition, the petitioners stated that the residence occupied by former President Maithripala Sirisena on Mahagama Sekara Mawatha (Paget Road) is of great financial value and is a valuable asset to the Country.
The benefits received by former presidents and their widows are regulated by the Presidents Entitlements Act, No. 4 of 1986.
The CPA stated that the Supreme Court has previously recognised that the terms of the Presidents Entitlements Act have to be strictly interpreted and applied. As such the CPA argued that, the allocation of a public asset of such financial value for the personal use of a former President who is no longer carrying out the functions of a Head of State is irrational, arbitrary and illegal, especially because the said residence was constructed in a manner befitting a Head of State. The CPA further argued it is wrong for the Cabinet of Ministers to decide on the benefits of a retiring President before he ceases to hold office.
Because of these reasons, CPA contended that the fundamental rights of the Petitioners’ and the fundamental rights of the citizens of Sri Lanka guaranteed under Article 12(1) (Right to Equality) of the Constitution have been violated by the above-mentioned decision made by the Cabinet of Ministers.
The CPA recognises that a former President is entitled to certain benefits in terms of the Presidents Entitlements Act and security because of security concerns. As such, the Petitioners limited their challenge to only the decision to provide continued use of the Mahagama Sekara Mawatha residence and the costs associated with the same.
