Sirisena’s castle in the air

Saturday 2nd March, 2024

Former President Maithripala Sirisena’s plan to occupy his Paget Road official residence as part of his retirement package has gone awry. The Supreme Court (SC), on Friday, ruled that a Cabinet decision made on 15 Oct., 2019, to allow the then President Sirisena to continue to occupy the aforesaid official residence after his retirement was illegal and amounted to a violation of the rule of law and the fundamental rights of citizens.

President Sirisena declared, immediately after his election in 2015, that he would not live in the President’s House, Colombo 01, and would stay in his Paget Road official residence, instead. When the refurbishment of that house got underway, we pointed out in an editorial comment that Sirisena was craftily planning to make the place part of his retirement package.

During the Yahapalana government, Sirisena and the UNP-led UNF, which was in control of Parliament, fell out after his abortive bid to sack the then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and dissolve Parliament, in late 2018, but he continued to be the Head of government and Head of the Cabinet, which decided to allow him to remain at the Paget Road house after retirement. There was a conflict of interest. Sirisena and the UNP-led government were at daggers drawn, but their enmity did not stand in the way of feathering their nests at the expense of the public.

Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga did something similar during the latter stages of her second presidential term in 2005. She had her Cabinet grant her a block of prime land, encompassing one and a half acres, at Madiwala, as part of her retirement package. But the controversial Cabinet decision led to a legal battle, and Kumaratunga had to return the land.

Sirisena should have learnt from Chandrika’s experience. He, however, has not lost anything due to the aforesaid court decision. He is entitled to an official residence, security, personal staff, a pension, etc., like all other former Presidents.

Sri Lankans are paying through the nose to maintain four ex-Presidents and the widow of a late President. Ironically, they include the person, on whose presidential term, the economy nosedived, causing untold suffering to the public.

Never do Presidents, or other politicians for that matter, retire poor, in this country, though they make themselves out to be paragons of virtue. So, it does not make sense and is in fact unfair to make the public pay for maintaining the Presidents after they leave office.

Hence, it is being argued in some quarters that the Presidential Entitlement Act, which enables ex-Presidents to live the high life at the expense of taxpayers, should be abolished. Some Opposition politicians have promised to do so if they are voted into power, but they are living the life of Riley with funds purportedly donated by unnamed well-wishers. There’s the rub.