SC’s rights ruling and President’s ‘Hobson’s choice’ - EDITORIAL

On 22 August this month, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled the President in his capacity as Finance Minister had infringed the rights of the people by postponing the 2023 Local Government (LG) elections. The SC is the ultimate adjudicator of the law and there can be no questioning of its judgments which is based on the letter of the law.  

In its judgment the highest court of the land, ordered the Office of the Commissioner of Elections and relevant state institutions to conduct the local government elections without delay. LG elections were originally scheduled to be held in 2022, but were postponed to 2023 due to the worsening economic crisis and instability in the country, before being postponed again. 

At the time LG elections were to be held, the country was in the midst of an economic meltdown. Our foreign debt stood at 36.3 billion US dollars (2023). In September, 2022 Sri Lanka reached a Staff Level Agreement (SLA) with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) towards restoring macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability. 

The reality was we did not have sufficient funds to purchase basics ranging from food, to fuel, gas, medicines etc. It was only in September 2023 thanks to the IMF package and India’s credit line the fuel rationing was brought to an end.  

The Chairman of the Election Commission R.M.A.L. Rathnayake says Rs.10 billion will be spent to hold the Presidential Election this year. In 2023 did the country  not have Rs. 10 billion to spend on the election? Holding an election at that stage would necessitate spending time and maybe printing money. A red flag to the all-important IMF restructuring package. It would lead to a further rise in inflation and an all-round cost rise. 

Wickremesinghe was faced with a Hobson’s choice -he was literally caught between a rock and a hard place. His decision has resulted in the Apex court passing strictures on his decision. 

As we mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring our people the promise of equal justice under law. Thereby it also functions as a guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. It does not take for instance the people’s views or needs on particular issues.  

One of the best exemplifications of this is the present tug-of-war between the Courts and the women in America regarding abortion rights in that country. A supreme court bench overturned abortion rights despite a majority of people in that country demanding this right. 

Why? Because that is the letter of the (outdated) law prevailing in that country. 

Not too long ago in our own country, when Britain’s Privy Council was the highest apex court, it overturned a decision by the Supreme Court and freed members of a coup who plotted the overthrow  the then legally elected government of Ms. Sirimavo Bandaranaike. The Council held the judgment was ‘bad in law’ as it passed judgement with retrospective effect. 

Does the Supreme Court decision of  22 August also mean, that LG elections must need be held before parliamentary elections in the aftermath of the presidential elections? If so it means there may be no speedy dissolution of Parliament shortly after a new president takes office. 

The Commissioner of Elections will now have to seek the advice of the Court as to how he is to proceed hereon. 

Whatever the procedure, one cannot but praise the Supreme Court for clarifying the legal position regarding the postponement of elections even though it meant coming into conflict with the executive. 

Older citizens will remember how the first executive president attempted to browbeat the judiciary by organising groups of hoodlums to protest particular judgments. 

In this regard one must take his/her cap off to the incumbent president for accepting the verdict of the court regarding his decision to postpone local government elections in 2023.