COLOMBO — A three-judge bench has ruled that a prisoner received unequal treatment under a September 2024 general amnesty, restoring the legal effect of his 29-month sentence.
The Supreme Court has invalidated a presidential remission granted during former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s administration to a man sentenced to 29 months’ imprisonment for failing to pay Rs. 1.74 million in maintenance arrears, ruling that his early release violated the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law.
In its judgment delivered on October 23, the three-judge bench held that the remission granted to Mohamed Ameen Mohamed Naseem under a September 2024 general amnesty breached Article 12(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees equality and equal protection of the law.
The Court declared the remission null and void, restoring the legal effect of Naseem’s original prison sentence. It also described him as a “fugitive from justice” and said he should surrender immediately to law enforcement authorities.
The ruling followed Fundamental Rights Application No. 319/2024, filed by Naseem’s former wife, Ahamend Jaleel Farmilla Begum, challenging his release after he had served less than two months of his sentence.
Maintenance Arrears Led to 29-Month Prison Sentence
The dispute originated from a maintenance order issued by the Colombo East Quazi Court.
According to reporting on the judgment, Begum had obtained an order requiring her former husband to pay maintenance. Following his failure to comply, proceedings before the Negombo Magistrate’s Court resulted in enforcement action over arrears totalling Rs. 1.74 million.
Naseem was sentenced to 29 months’ imprisonment and admitted to prison in July 2024.
However, on September 12, 2024, he was released under a general amnesty granted to mark Prisoners’ Day, following a recommendation by the then Minister of Justice.
At the time of his release, Naseem had served less than two months of the sentence.
His former wife subsequently challenged the decision, arguing that the remission was arbitrary and had affected her ability to recover the outstanding maintenance payments.
Supreme Court Finds Unequal Treatment Under Amnesty
A central issue before the Supreme Court was the different treatment of two prisoners serving sentences for failing to pay maintenance.
Naseem received remission of the remainder of his 29-month sentence because his warrant of commitment recorded the imprisonment as arising from non-payment of a “fine”.
Another prisoner, Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Nawshad, had also been imprisoned for defaulting on maintenance payments.
Nawshad had served approximately eight months of a 27-month sentence when the general amnesty was granted, but received only a one-week reduction.
The Supreme Court found that the difference in wording between the two commitment warrants did not provide a legally justifiable basis for treating the prisoners differently.
Both sentences arose from failures to comply with maintenance obligations.
Consequently, the Court held that former President Wickremesinghe, the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice and the Commissioner General of Prisons had violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 12(1).
Original Prison Warrant Remains Valid
Having declared the remission null and void, the Supreme Court confirmed that the legal effect of Naseem’s original sentence remained in force.
The Court observed that he should surrender immediately to law enforcement authorities.
It also confirmed that the original warrant issued by the Negombo Magistrate’s Court remained legally valid and provided sufficient authority for the sentence to be enforced.
No additional Supreme Court order was necessary because the relevant Magistrate’s Court already possessed the authority to initiate the required enforcement action.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Janak de Silva, with Justices Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna and Sampath K. B. Wijeratne agreeing.
Fresh Presidential Remission Remains Legally Possible
The Supreme Court clarified that its ruling did not prevent the President from granting Naseem a fresh remission.
Any such decision would, however, have to be made in accordance with the law and after consideration of all relevant circumstances.
The judgment therefore invalidates the specific remission granted in September 2024 without removing the constitutional power to consider a subsequent lawful exercise of clemency.
Its wider significance lies in the Court’s finding that differences in administrative wording cannot justify unequal treatment of prisoners whose sentences arise from comparable circumstances.
Whether Naseem has surrendered or been taken back into custody following the ruling has not been established in the reporting reviewed.
The next practical step rests with the relevant law enforcement and judicial authorities, which retain the power to implement the outstanding sentence.
