The Supreme Court yesterday (25th) announced that it will submit its confidential ruling on the constitutionality of the bill seeking to remove privileges of retired presidents to the Speaker of Parliament.
A three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Justices Achala Wengappuli and Sampath Abeykoon, made this announcement after concluding hearings on petitions filed against the Presidents’ Entitlements (Repeal) Bill.
At the start of the hearing, President’s Counsel Ali Sabry, representing former Navy Chief of Staff S.M. Wijewickrama, argued that under the Presidential Entitlements Act No. 4 of 1986, retired presidents and their widows are entitled to housing, pensions, staff, and transportation. If housing is not provided, one-third of the pension must be given as a housing allowance.
He stressed that Articles 36(2) and 36(4) of the Constitution guarantee these privileges, which may be increased by Parliament but cannot be reduced without a referendum. Citing the 19th Amendment in 2015, he noted that the Supreme Court had ruled such changes require both a parliamentary majority and people’s approval, as these privileges belong to the office of the presidency, not the individual.
Sabry also drew comparisons to international practice, noting that even when former U.S. President Barack Obama sought to waive his pension, Congress refused, emphasizing that privileges exist to preserve the dignity of the office, not the person. He argued that such entitlements encourage capable individuals to assume high office and ensure security for presidents who made critical national decisions, such as during the final phase of Sri Lanka’s war in 2009.
Other petitioners, including attorneys Ashok Baran, Eraj de Silva, and Saman Galappaththi, echoed this view, arguing that reducing former presidents’ privileges violates the separation of powers and undermines sovereignty. They warned that the proposed bill amounts to suspending Article 36 of the Constitution, thereby weakening the executive branch and breaching constitutional safeguards.
However, Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne, representing the government, countered that the bill is not a constitutional amendment but a simple repeal of the 1986 Act. He said it does not affect pensions or fundamental rights and therefore does not require a referendum, only a simple majority in Parliament.
Dayaratne further pointed out that the government campaigned on a promise to remove presidential privileges, making the bill a legitimate policy decision. He argued that repealing the 1986 Act lies within Parliament’s authority and does not violate constitutional principles.
The Court instructed all parties to submit any written submissions by noon on Thursday (28th). It will then deliver its confidential determination to the Speaker of Parliament.
