The government has quietly withdrawn its earlier promise to abolish pensions and special privileges granted to former presidents and their families, a move once hailed as a bold step toward reform.
The reversal came to light through a document acquired under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which revealed that the Ministry of Justice and National Integration had removed the commitment from its official action plan.
Back in March, a circular issued by the Secretary to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake directed all ministries to align their goals with the NPP government’s national policy framework titled “A Thriving Nation, A Beautiful Life.” Each ministry was instructed to evaluate their assigned responsibilities and submit any proposed amendments.
While the circular itself was publicly released, an attached annexe containing the finalised list of commitments was not made public. That annexe has now been obtained through an RTI request, shedding light on critical omissions.
Among the removed commitments is the pledge to “abolish pensions and special privileges given to retired presidents and their families.” The removal has been formally marked as “accepted,” meaning the proposal to delete it from the action plan was approved.
Another deleted commitment includes safeguarding the voting rights of Sri Lankans migrating for jobs abroad a promise originally aimed at extending democratic access to a growing population of overseas workers.
Interestingly, not all bold reforms have been abandoned. The Ministry’s action plan still includes a commitment to abolish the executive presidency, replacing it with a ceremonial president appointed by Parliament.
The retreat from scrapping ex-presidential perks is believed to stem from constitutional limitations. A committee appointed by President Dissanayake earlier this year reportedly found that many of the promised reforms could not be implemented without significant amendments to the Constitution.
Notably, Article 36(2) of the Constitution guarantees pension rights to presidents as determined by Parliament, and clearly states that any future changes to the law cannot be applied retroactively.
Even more binding is Article 36(4), which allows Parliament to increase, but not reduce, the salary, allowances, or pension entitlements of presidents even after their tenure.
This legal hurdle appears to have been the primary reason behind the quiet removal of the pledge, despite widespread public support for curbing excessive benefits granted to former heads of state.
As critics now question whether the administration’s reform agenda is beginning to erode, others argue that the government should explore alternative legal avenues to address public frustration over elite privileges.
In the meantime, the decision has sparked backlash among civil society groups who accuse the government of backtracking on promises made during the campaign trail. Whether this is a strategic pause or a permanent climbdown remains to be seen.
About the Author
