The Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara, Attorney-at-Law – Minister of Justice and National Integration

¶ 01 Mr. Speaker, I move, “That the Bill now be read a Second time.”

¶ 02 Today we present for Second Reading the Bill to abolish the Presidents’ Entitlements Act, No. 4 of 1986. I wish to commence by recalling Justice Weeramantry’s invocation of the Buddha’s teaching: “Those who hold power must act as trustees for the people, exercising their authority for the common good.” In Sinhala: whether a King or a President, power must be exercised as a trustee of the people, not as an owner, always for the common good.

¶ 03 The National People’s Power policy asserts that no privilege denied to the people should be claimed by rulers, and all are equal before the law. These are not mere words; they guide our lives. We are trustees only.

¶ 04 The 1986 Act was not part of the Constitution. After the 1978 Constitution introduced the Executive Presidency, in 1986 another law was brought to secure post-office entitlements. Article 36 of the Constitution governs a President’s pension; this Bill does not touch that. Constitutional questions can be addressed in future reforms. Today, we deal with statutory entitlements: notably, the house. The Act did not say an “official residence” but a “suitable residence” or place, with up to one-third of the pension paid towards it. It also provided monthly pensions to widows, a monthly secretary’s allowance, transport, etc.

¶ 05 Why is this Act problematic? Not merely because of its text, but because rulers who think they own public funds have abused it. The people asked us to cut wasteful expenditure and stop such perks. Hence our policy to abolish these entitlements.

¶ 06 Two cases illustrate abuse: Senarath and others v. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and the case relating to President Maithripala Sirisena’s post-office entitlements. In the former, a Cabinet decision sought to acquire land in Madivela for a house, citing the 1986 Act; the Supreme Court held “Her entitlements are arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires. It violates the rule of law.” In the latter, requests included STF protection, retention of the Colombo 7 residence, vehicles, fuel, utilities, staff, even approval for two cooks—all purportedly under the 1986 Act. The courts did not permit what the Act did not grant.

¶ 07 Some argue about security. Security is not in this Act; it is dealt with by Cabinet decisions and can be augmented if needed based on threat assessments.

¶ 08 Rule of law strengthens the economy. Today, Sri Lanka is recovering because we respect the rule of law, with rulers subject to it. The World Bank notes we are better focused on proper use of public finances, with notable progress on stabilization and scope to raise revenue by 2% of GDP by 2029 without undermining equity.

¶ 09 Others say retired Presidents need support as in the UK, India or the US. In those countries, limited support often accompanies ongoing public service roles. Our context differs: some seek to build palaces and cling to power. It is unfair to fund such perks from taxpayers. If any former President faces genuine hardship, they may write to the President; we will act fairly.

¶ 10 We are trustees of public funds, not owners. Therefore, consistent with our pledge, we repeal the Presidents’ Entitlements Act to prevent waste of public money.

¶ 11 I also urge the Hon. Leader of the Opposition: criticize us when we err, but support good measures. I trust he and most of his team will back this.

¶ 12 Question proposed.