The Hon. M. Nizam Kariapper, PC

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees, today we debate the Bill to repeal the Presidents’ Entitlements Act. I checked why this is styled “Presidents’ Entitlements” as “rights” in Sinhala; in fact, Act No. 4 of 1986 provided benefits to former Presidents and their widows. Though termed “rights,” they were really “entitlements.” So we are repealing entitlements, even if the Act used the word rights.

¶ 02 Article 36 of the 1978 Constitution provides for salary, pension and other emoluments of the President. I believe this Bill does not touch Article 36; thus, the current President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s salary and pension provisions remain. Some may think that by removing widows’ benefits, current Presidents’ pensions are removed — that is not so. There is a technical point about whether the required resolution under Article 36(2) was passed within one month of commencement; perhaps it was provided under the Interpretation Act — I am not fully informed.

¶ 03 The real problem is official residences turned into personal mansions. They should have had an official house, not a palace converted into private property. The first challenge the government faced was repossessing those improperly appropriated state residences — we hoped it would be done swiftly through court, but for some reason it did not. Now the Bill seeks to repeal Act No. 4 of 1986 entirely. However, there is a gap: no accountability mechanism here. If a former President or widow improperly uses an official residence or palace, this Bill itself does not provide for recovery or sanctions; earlier the Supreme Court did provide accountability in cases against Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and Maithripala Sirisena. If the government does not pursue legal action where improper benefit was taken, there will be no accountability.

¶ 04 Another point: even to recover party offices, the government seemed reluctant to rely on courts; orders exist, but are enforced not through the Fiscal — that is their internal issue. The broader concern is rule of law — we must not set the wrong example.

¶ 05 What is the urgency for this Bill within 24 hours of the Supreme Court order being tabled, while there is no urgency to hold Provincial Council elections? There is talk of delimitation again — meaning no preparation to hold those polls. Likewise, where is the urgency to bring the expected constitutional reforms, including changes to the presidential system? Government policy papers look tailored to party priorities rather than national aspirations, which is disappointing for us, especially as representatives of Tamil and Muslim communities who need urgent legislation for their people’s needs. We ask the government to bring such people‑oriented Bills with urgency, and I conclude. Thank you.