Decision taken in court regarding the case against Gotabhaya, Mahinda, Basil and others

Today (July 01) the court took into account the decision to be taken on June 28 regarding the granting of permission for the fundamental rights petition filed by Transparency International Sri Lanka and three others in the Supreme Court against the individuals responsible for the current economic crisis in Sri Lanka.

Only three respondents appeared before the court today.

Only the lawyers who represented the first respondent (President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa), the eighth respondent Nandalal Weerasinghe and the ninth respondent Sri Lanka Monetary Board appeared in court when the case was called today.

Counsel for the eighth and ninth respondents informed the court that a similar case (SCFR 195/2022) has already been filed and is scheduled for support before a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on July 4.

Accordingly, the lawyer asked the court to consider taking both these matters at the same time. Accordingly, the court referred the request to the Chief Justice for consideration.

Mahinda Rajapaksa, Basil Rajapaksa, Professor W. D. Laxman and Ajith Nivard Cabral (former Governors of the Central Bank), former Treasury Secretary S. R. The petitioners have sought interim relief to prohibit Atigala from traveling abroad without the prior approval of the Supreme Court.

The petitioners have also requested the appointment of a committee under the Supreme Court to investigate the reasons for this situation and the action taken by the respondents, as well as to prepare a report on the financial irregularities and mismanagement of the economy.

The petition was filed by Transparency International Sri Lanka along with other petitioners Chandra Jayaratne, Julian Bowling and Jehan Kanagaratne.

The fundamental rights case has been filed against high-level decision-making without transparency and accountability, creating a crisis in Sri Lanka.

As mentioned below are some of the reasons that affected the economic crisis.

Decreasing government revenue through illegal tax concessions in 2019.

Failure to reverse those tax breaks.

Delay in seeking assistance from the International Monetary Fund.

Not making timely decisions on the value of the rupee.

The petitioners allege that the respective respondents are directly responsible for the aforesaid facts.