Columns

The historic and groundbreaking judgment of the Supreme Court delivered last week brought to the fore some of the responsibilities of those who govern the country from time to time.

In recent times, more particularly after the introduction of the Executive Presidency office and the vesting of enormous powers in the Head of State, there has been an almost casual approach to governance in the country. The disastrous consequences of such actions by those who held high office posts, resulted in untold suffering with the people, from 2019 to 2022. 

The Supreme Court has taken cognisance of the peoples suffering during that period and in its judgment referred to the severe hardships, the people had to suffer due to scarcities in essentials such as fuel, gas and medicines coupled with long hours of power shortages. The judgment described the mis-governance of that period as one which brought the people’s lives to a standstill and caused them immeasurable suffering.

Not surprisingly President Ranil Wickremesinghe in his Budget speech for 2024 delivered on November 13, virtually echoed the Supreme Court but described the situation when he took over the Government even more graphically as follows: “At the time I took over a patient who was dying. A country that resembled a living hell. A derailed economy that had been brought to its knees.”

In its observations the Supreme Court said the main focus of the Court was on the country’s economic situation between November 2019 and April 2022. It described the reason for this focus as “the core issue the Court was invited to consider was whether the impact of the unprecedented economic crisis on the society resulted in the infringement of the people’s fundamental rights and if
so, whether any one or more of the respondents
were responsible for such infringements…”

The Supreme Court in its judgment has considered the counter arguments of the respondents that the root causes for this debacle spread well beyond the 2019-2022 time period and therefore
no responsibility could be attributed to them for the economy crashing.

While rejecting such arguments, the Supreme Court has underscored the duty of respondents holding high public offices which are bestowed with powers which bear a direct impact on the people’s lives. The SC judgment has drawn attention to the obligation of the respondents to
discharge such powers in the manner spelt out in the
directive principles in
our Constitution.

“The directive principles of State policy are not wasted ink in the pages of the Constitution. They are a living set of guidelines which the State and its agencies should give effect to” per Prasanna Jayawardena, PCJ, in Ravindra Gunawaradane Kariyawasam v CEA, SC FR 141/2015 Sc minutes of 4.4.2019.

Government spokespeople have at various times attempted to dilute their culpability for the blunders of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa Presidency by attributing the crashing of the economy to the mistakes of previous governments. Despite the Supreme Court rejecting such an argument, Minister Prasanna Ranatunga once again repeated the argument when he participated in the Budget debate yesterday.

In his speech the Minister said that Opposition Members were trying to interpret the Supreme Court Judgment to mean that only a few respondents in the case were responsible for the economic debacle. Developing his argument further he said the Court made its decision based on the material presented to it and could not take into account material not presented to it.

He cited the economic resources used to fight the war as one of the factors the Court could not take into account. He may have forgotten that the lawyers representing the respondents had the opportunity to present all material favourable to the latter before proceedings in Court and that the Court had given due consideration to whatever material put forward by the respondents.

The significance of the Supreme Court judgment goes beyond the contestation of the claims of the petitioners and the counter claims of the respondents. The pronouncements and determinations of the Supreme Court have far reaching implications for accountability in governance which those aspirants for high office need to take note of.

While the civic minded petitioners deserve to be congratulated for their efforts, the fact that it was a five-judge bench, albeit with one judge dissenting, which considered a range of arguments before coming to a conclusion added value to the increasing call for accountability in governance.

Although the judgment was limited to the actions of the named respondents it has by extension to be applied to many of the other actions that caused harm to the people. Those other close advisers and officials of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa Presidency also have to take a share of the blame for driving the country to bankruptcy.

The Supreme Court judgment has focused on the blunders in economic decision making of the then Government. There are also other areas in which the Government of the day failed which probably have to be accounted for at an election.

The disastrous 20th Amendment to the Constitution which created the mindset for the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government to override the voices of reason, the unbridled corruption which permeated all sectors of society, and the anti-minority rhetoric are but a few of the actions that gave birth to the Aragalaya.

The Supreme Court judgment has signalled that the Courts will not hesitate to hold to account Government officials even prior to them being called to do so through an electoral process.

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)