Former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga said that she would not resort to any legal action against the Government’s decision to abolish the privileges granted to former Presidents.
In a communication shared with The Daily Morning, Kumaratunga’s office stated: “There have been reports claiming that Kumaratunga, together with four other former Presidents (Mahinda Rajapaksa, Maithripala Sirisena, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and Ranil Wickremesinghe), is preparing to initiate legal action against the Government’s decision to repeal the Presidents’ Entitlements Act, No. 4 of 1986. Such reports are completely false. She has not, and will not, take any such action.”
The Government recently gazetted a draft Bill to repeal the Presidents’ Entitlements Act. Presented by Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, the Bill seeks to abolish State-funded residences, monthly allowances, official transport, secretarial support, and other facilities provided to former Presidents. The repeal will apply retroactively, meaning that benefits already being received by former Presidents will be discontinued once the Act comes into effect.
If passed, the only remaining entitlement for former Presidents will be the standard monthly pension of Rs. 97,500. Under the proposed law, widows of former Heads of State will also lose their pensions (only late President Ranasinghe Premadasa’s spouse Hema Premadasa falls into this category).
Earlier this week, a petition was filed before the Supreme Court (SC) by the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna Administrative Secretary Renuka Perera, challenging the Bill. The Attorney General has been named as the respondent. The petitioner stated that the Government submitted the Bill to Parliament on 7 August with the intention of revoking the privileges currently enjoyed by former Presidents. He argued that several clauses violate the doctrine of the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution, and that some provisions infringe on the sovereignty of the people and the independence of the nation.
The petition further claimed that, taken as a whole, the Bill’s provisions undermine the fundamental framework of the Constitution. The petitioner requested the SC to determine that the contested clauses can only be passed with a two-thirds Parliamentary majority and must also be approved through a public referendum.