Economic Crisis: Supreme Court holds a landmark judgment over former rulers

The names of well-famous, former rulers of Sri Lanka came under the judgment of SC as “well-responsible figures” for the economic crisis faced by civilians in the country.

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court yesterday, the 14th of November, held that former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, former Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, former Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa (famous Rajapaksa brothers), former Governors of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, Prof W.D Lakshman and Ajith Nivard Cabraal, former Secretary to the Treasury S.R. Attygala, former Monetary Board, and former Secretary to the President Dr. P.B. Jayasundera violated the public trust and breached Article 12 (1) of the Constitution, in their administration of the economy, leading to the economic crisis in the country.

Yesterday, the judgment was published for the two fundamental rights petitions filed before the Supreme Court by the Transperency International (TISL), Jehan CanagaRetna, a group including former president of Sri Lanka Chamber of Commerce Chandra Jayaratne, swimming champion Julian Bolling and Dr. Mahim Mendis of Sri Lanka Open University, requesting an order to conduct an investigation into the people responsible for the current economic crisis.

The petitioners claimed that the respondents named in the petition were directly responsible for the unsustainability of Sri Lanka’s foreign debt, its hard default on foreign loan repayments, and the current state of the economy of Sri Lanka. The petitioners called for the respondents to be held accountable for their illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable acts or omissions, which culminated in the unprecedented crisis.

The TISL said the petition was filed in the public interest, considering the lack of accountability and transparency in high-level decision-making that has brought Sri Lanka to its knees.

According to the TISL, the Petitioners argued that the fundamental rights of the citizens to equality, freedom of expression and the right to information guaranteed under the Constitution had been violated through the actions or inactions of the respondents, among other rights.

It added that the actions and inaction of the respondents led to the shortages of food, medicine, fuel and LP Gas in the country, victimizing the entire population in an unprecedented manner.

The petition highlighted that the reduction in Government revenue caused by the tax breaks, failure to reverse the tax breaks, the decision to continue servicing sovereign debt without any restructuring, and the refusal to seek the assistance of the IMF were among the main factors that caused the economic crisis.

The ruling was delivered based on the majority view of the five-judge bench in respect of two fundamental rights (FR) petitions filed in this respect. The case was heard before Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC; Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC; Priyantha Jayawardena, PC; Vijith Malalgoda, PC; and Murdu Fernando, PC.

The decision was a 4-1 split, with Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC dissenting, the TISL mentioned in a statement.

The TISL said the judges have made some key observations in their judgment:

The conduct of Respondents directly contributed to the results that led to the crisis situation.

Respondents ought to have known and should have taken actions to resolve matters that negatively impacted the economy and not further aggravating the impact and are responsible to act in the best interest of the country

Public officers have a responsibility to discharge their duties in the best interest of public.

Respondents are bestowed high power to uphold public trust and are duty-bound to discharge duties according to Directives of the Constitution.

Respondents cannot shirk responsibility by merely stating that the decisions they took were policy decisions.

It was within full power of Respondents to prevent such calamity as they had full knowledge.

It is clear that they did not act and take all measures to remedy the situation in the public interest.

Cumulative actions and inactions by Respondents led to the debacle.

The public trust reposed in Respondents was not a higher one and is bestowed on all officers, and therefore Respondents were obliged to act in a responsible manner.

Actions, omissions and conduct of Respondents contributed to the economic crisis.

Given that petitioners had come to courts in the interest of the public and did not seek compensation for themselves, the judge bench was not inclined to order compensation other than costs incurred by petitioners.

Chandaka Jayasundera, PC, appeared for the Petitioners along with S.A. Beling, Chinthaka Fernando, Sayuri Liyanasuriya and Manisha Dissanayake.

END.