Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe has been found guilty by the country’s top court of “illegal conduct” for delaying local elections by more than a year. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Jayant Jayasuriya gave the verdict on Thursday. News from AFP and Hindustan Times Online.
According to the report, the presidential election in Sri Lanka is next September. Before that, the President of the country Ranil Wickremesinghe was uncomfortable. The president was accused of delaying local elections in a country plagued by economic problems. The case was filed in the Supreme Court of the country.
Wickremesinghe cited the economic crisis as the reason for the delay in the presidential election. Apart from convicting the president, the apex court also ordered the local elections to be held quickly.
Sri Lanka was supposed to hold local elections in March last year. But, that election was postponed. Wickramasinghe mentioned the economic crisis as the reason.
After this verdict, Wickramasinghe claimed in his own behalf that his first responsibility is to restore the economy to normal and ensure the right to life.
He assured that he will protect both the lives of the people and their right to vote in elections.
At the same time, while supporting the postponement of the elections, he said that he was not sorry for the delay. Because it was necessary to meet the economic challenges and ensure the right to life.
Wickremesinghe took over after the resignation of previous President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. At that time there was a serious economic crisis in the country. After that, local elections were supposed to be held in March last year, but the president postponed it.
The Supreme Court ruled that Wickramasinghe had failed to allocate funds for local elections. Earlier the court ordered to make this election mandatory. Wickramasinghe’s administration, however, argued that the funds were necessary for government employees and pensions. The court criticized Wickramasinghe’s “arbitrary” and “illegal conduct”. The Supreme Court observed that this conduct violated constitutional rights.
