The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law - Deputy Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees, Hon. D.V. Chanaka said his National Organizer Namal Rajapaksa has sent me a letter of demand. It is on social media, but I have not officially received it. He intends to file a defamation case. Perhaps he has not practiced law and does not know: in defamation, the plaintiff can be cross‑examined on anything, unlike in property cases where only relevant matters are asked. One who brings a defamation suit should not live in a glass house; character is on trial.

¶ 02 His CV says he has an LL.B. from a UK university. After he files, I will cross‑examine: Did you meet minimum requirements for Law College? Is your UK degree a recognized qualification? Did you sit Law College finals in a separate room? Next: Are you or your family connected to murders of Thajudeen, Lasantha Wickrematunge, and Eknaligoda? Is “Amare of Julampitiya” your bodyguard? Did your father shelter Nimal Lanza from the STF under the pretext of protection? File within 14 days; otherwise I will seek damages by counterclaim.

¶ 03 Today’s debate concerns the Presidents’ Entitlements Act. Its root lay in Article 36(2) of the Constitution. Some of the worst clauses in our Constitution allowed “retirement for life” — beyond amendment — only for themselves. Soon after passing that, a new law came — at someone’s wife’s behest — demanding 60 percent of entitlements, a house for the widow, and even benefits for children. Thus was born Act No. 4 of 1986 — to divide and feast.

¶ 04 Why is it atrocious? Because the given entitlements were abused. An official residence given to the President became a personal house through Cabinet manoeuvres. Former President Maithripala Sirisena tried that; the Supreme Court stopped it. President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga took UDA land via Cabinet and even more — the Court stopped that too. There was no limit to this greed.

¶ 05 Let me quote yesterday’s Supreme Court judgment tabled in Parliament: only salary, allowances, and pension are protected under the Constitution from removal by later amendment. Act No. 4 of 1986, passed eight years after the Constitution, merely added benefits — which the Constitution never contemplated — and grants entitlements only to former Presidents and their widows, being an intrinsic exception to equality before the law. The Court notes there is no similar legal provision in any other country.

¶ 06 Our repeal today restores constitutional fairness and equality before the law. That is our victory.

¶ 07 Thank you.