The Supreme Court, in its written ruling on the request for former Treasury Secretary P.B. Jayasundera to return to public office, said this week that President Mahinda Rajapaksa was ‘free to consider’ appointing Dr. Jayasundera to the post of Finance (and Treasury) Secretary inspite of an undertaking given that he won’t hold public office again.
The written ruling was received by counsel appearing in the case on Monday after the Court on Thursday (September 24) allowed Dr Jayasundera’s plea vis-à-vis the LMS privatisation judgment. On Monday, he was reappointed Treasury Secretary by the President.
The Court refused the reliefs sought by the prayers in Dr. Jayasundera’s amended petition dated 31 July 2009 which were to vacate an Order of Court and relieve him from the undertaking given to Court in his affidavit.
The two prayers in Dr. Jayasundera’s petition were withdrawn by his attorney in Court last week. Only the last prayer (c) was what the Court made its ruling on. The prayers were:
- vacate the said Order dated 08.10.2008 in so far as it related to the inclusion in the Affidavit of a firm statement that the Petitioner ‘would not hold any office in any Governmental institution either directly or indirectly or purport to exercise in any manner executive or administrative functions.’
- To make order relieving the present Petitioner of the undertaking contained in Paragraph 13 of the said Affidavit dated 16th October 2008 tendered by the present Petitioner pursuant to the Order of Your Lordships’ Court and produced marked ‘D’ to this application.
- To grant such other and further relief as Your Lordships’ Court shall seem fit and meet
The ruling states that ‘accordingly, by majority decision with Justice Shiranee Thilakawardena dissenting, the Court decides that His Excellency the President, being the appointing authority in terms of Article 52 of the Constitution, would be free to consider appointing the 8th Respondent-Petitioner to the post of Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, notwithstanding the undertaking given to Court by the said 8th Respondent-Petitioner.' |
E-mail