All the hype associated with Budget 2024 fizzled out in the aftermath of the landmark court ruling last week, leading to the current political configuration being in a state of flux ever since, and destined to be irrevocably altered, sooner than later.

The historic Supreme Court judgment of 14 November held that former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, former Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, former Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa, former Central Bank Governors Prof. W.D. Lakshman and Ajith Nivard Cabraal, former Treasury Secretary S.R. Attygalle, former President’s Secretary Dr. P.B. Jayasundera, and the former Monetary Board violated the fundamental rights of the people and public trust in breach of Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Court held that these individuals were responsible for causing the economic crisis and driving the country to bankruptcy. 

It will be recalled that right along, up until people decided to storm the palaces, these individuals collectively denied any cause for concern with regard to the economy and painted a rosy picture, even justifying the repayment of $ 500 million worth of maturing ISBs just three months prior to bankruptcy. While these individuals have publicly never relented on that stance, always pinning blame for the crisis on everything and everyone else, the Supreme Court ruling has once and for all changed that narrative by naming those primarily responsible for the economic crisis, which persists to date. 

The judgment is not only a welcome step in the quest for good governance but is also a stark warning to those still used to passing the buck, that there will come a time when the buck stops at their doorstep and they will be called upon to account for their actions.

Meanwhile, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa may have committed hara-kiri by publicly claiming he does not accept the Supreme Court judgment and that he will explain the reasons for it. He made this statement while visiting the Dalada Maligawa last week. One could recall a similar ‘non-acceptance’ a few years ago by a Member of Parliament that quickly resulted in his incarceration on charges of contempt and who remains stripped of his civic rights despite a presidential pardon granted by the current President. 

However, the irony of ironies is that it is the very same MPs who raised their hands to the decisions taken by those who have now been found guilty of violating the people’s fundamental rights that also raised their hands to elect the current President. The main Opposition SJB that moved court on the matter now appears to be readying itself for the next step by taking the matter to the President’s doorstep, calling for the appointment of a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry with a view to removing the civic rights of those found guilty by court. While it would be the logical next step given the stunning observations in the judgment, whether the President will move on the matter given the delicate political configuration post-judgment remains to be seen.

What is unprecedented is that the judgment notes that not only did the respondents directly contribute to the events that led to the crisis situation, but that their subsequent cumulative actions and inactions further aggravated the crisis. The court noted that the respondents ought to have known and should have taken action to resolve matters that negatively impacted the economy and not further aggravate the impact as they were responsible to act in the best interest of the country.

The landmark judgment stated that respondents were bestowed high power to uphold public trust and were duty-bound to discharge duties according to the Constitution. Therefore they cannot shirk responsibility by merely stating that the decisions they took were policy decisions while it was within their full power to prevent such a calamity as they had full knowledge of events and did not act or take necessary measures to remedy the situation in the public interest. The judgment concluded that the actions, omissions, and conduct of the respondents contributed to the economic crisis.

Given the IMF’s insistence on creating a governance mechanism anchored on accountability, the President already has his work cut out and may well be obliged to let the Opposition have its way in its request for the appointment of a Presidential Commission of Inquiry to strip those found guilty of their civic rights. 

Given the enormity of the crisis that led to, among other implications, an acute shortage of food, medicine, fuel, gas, etc., where the business sector and especially the smaller entities were dealt a deadly blow, where thousands of jobs were lost and people died in various queues, while all round quality of life plummeted with the middle class wiped out, and while debt continues to balloon where generations to come will have to keep paying, it is necessary that the right message is sent out to the world that Sri Lanka is ready to turn the corner not only in word but in deed by holding to account those found to have been responsible for the crisis.

It was noted by court that the primary causes of the crisis were the arbitrary reduction in State revenue as a result of huge tax breaks, continuing to service external debt sans any restructuring, maintaining an artificially-low exchange rate over an extended period, and refusal to seek IMF assistance when the writing was on the wall. Interestingly enough, none of the reasons hitherto put forward by those found guilty to disclaim responsibility, such as the Covid-19 pandemic or world events such as the war in Ukraine, have been recognised by court as contributory factors, once again rewriting the narration on the main causes of the crisis.

If the leadership of this nation is interested in rebuilding its tattered credibility not only among the people of this country but also the international community, especially the donor and investment community, it must at the very least get the ball rolling in fulfilling the 16 specific recommendations put forward by the IMF in its Governance Diagnostic Report that calls for better accountability. Unfortunately that does not appear to be on the agenda, with little or no provision for the implementation of those measures outlined in Budget 2024. Given that the second $ 300 million tranche of the IMF bailout is yet in abeyance despite a Staff-Level Agreement being reached weeks ago following the first review, it will be interesting to see how the Bretton Woods twin reacts to the deaf ear lent to its recommendations despite 70 plus new proposals being outlined by the Finance Minister in Budget 2024.

Interestingly enough, one such proposal is the allocation of Rs. 2 billion for yet another international airport in Hingurakgoda. Sri Lanka already has four international airports, namely at Katunayake, Ratmalana, Mattala, and Jaffna, but except for Katunayake, the rest are heavily underutilised, operating at a huge loss to the taxpayer. Therefore, the taxpayer has every right to question the obsession of the country’s leaders with new airports when tourism is still a long way off from the peak of 2018. Further, what is intriguing is how an approximate allocation of Rs. 2 billion was made in the absence of a feasibility study or an environmental impact assessment. 

When allocations of this nature are made for pie-in-the-sky projects, ignoring the need of the hour for better governance and strengthening of anti-corruption apparatus through increased funding, it is not that difficult to figure out that the leadership has lost the plot. The powers-that-be must be conscious of the fact that over 80% of revenue outlined in Budget 2024 is derived from direct and indirect taxes. With the country’s apex court already having set a precedent on matters pertaining to governance in the public interest and the need for accountability and transparency in high-level decision-making, it will be prudent for leaders past, present, and future to act with due diligence.