The outcome of the Supreme Court decision last Thursday in relation to Dr. P.B. Jayasundera’s recent application has been confusingly reported. The public ought to be made aware as to what actually took place and the precise decision the Supreme Court made in this regard. The journal entry of the court recording the decisions made on September 24, has now been released and it is proper that the media correct any wrong impression created in the public mind since erroneous front page headline coverage was given immediately following the decision before the official court record was available.
Dr. PBJ on receiving a letter from the President’s Secretary informing him to take up office as Secretary to the Treasury, petitioned the Supreme Court in July praying that;
- The order made by the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court last year, debarring him from holding any public office in future, be vacated.
- He be relieved of the undertaking given by him to the Supreme Court that he will not hold any public office in the future, reinforced by an Affidavit sworn by him including an apology last October.
- As routinely and procedurally prayed for in these applications, the court be pleased to grant such other and further relief as the Court seemed fit and meet.
The court refused to grant relief prayed for by Dr. PBJ on the first two matters prayed for according to the decision as recorded, save that under the third prayer it decided by 6:1 majority citing Article 52 of the Constitution that, the President being the appointing authority would be free to consider appointing Dr. PBJ to the office of Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, notwithstanding the undertaking given to Court.
So the questions which arise is that while the decision records that the President is free to consider to appoint, which in any event is the President’s prerogative because that provision being in the Constitution in clear in terms of Article 52 leaves little room for further argument, is Dr. PBJ free to accept office? The order does not state expressly or imply that he is free and is silent on the matter. The relief has been given to the President and not to the Petitioner, Dr. PBJ. The Secretary to the President has been a Respondent but he had not sought such relief.
It was Dr. PBJ who went to court with the Secretary to the President’s letter no doubt, but no relief was granted to him in regard to his earlier undertaking/affidavit which remains intact and firmly binding on him.
Is it not already established that the Secretary to the Treasury, though appointed by the President is like any other public officer and is primarily responsible to the people who actually employ and pay him? Can he therefore violate an order of the highest court in the land and a sworn affidavit which remains valid, intact and binding and has been refused to be withdrawn? Would not this conduct leave an open door to other public officers, who are under interdiction or suspension, pending inquiries into minor offences, to do the same? It is reported that the Supreme Court itself had directed the CID and the Bribery Commission to conduct investigations into this grave alleged fraud of public property.
It is also pertinent to observe that the words used to record the decision in court are “would be free to consider appointing……..” and not “free to appoint……..”. The use of the word consider and its use in conjunction with notwithstanding later in the sentence, leaves room for multiple interpretations and connotes that the entire responsibility is with the Executive in whom the powers to appoint are vested. However, is not the Executive also bound by the Constitution to act rightfully, lawfully and constitutionally? |
E-mail