Sri Lanka Repeals Parliamentary Pensions Act

On January 7, 2023, the Sri Lankan Parliament voted to repeal the Parliamentary Pensions Act, a law that had been in place for 49 years, which allowed members of parliament (MPs) to receive pensions after serving a minimum of five years. The repeal was initiated by Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, who argued that the quality of parliamentary debate did not warrant pension benefits for MPs. The vote concluded with 154 members in favor and only 2 against, reflecting the ruling party's two-thirds majority in the 225-member legislature. This decision follows a broader governmental trend under President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, which has included the withdrawal of various perks from former presidents, such as housing and security.

Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill passed without amendmentsLegislators’ pensions: Denying a legitimate expectation

The original Parliamentary Pensions Act No. 1 of 1977 was designed to ensure that participation in the legislature was not limited to the affluent, providing a pension to those who served in the national legislature for at least five years. Over the years, amendments in 1982 and 1990 expanded pension eligibility to include widowed spouses and surviving children of retired legislators, which some argue diluted the original intent of the law. The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka ruled that the repeal could proceed without constitutional conflict, allowing the government to enact the bill with a simple majority.

Legislators’ pensions: Denying a legitimate expectationParliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill passed without amendments

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa voiced significant concerns regarding the repeal, asserting that pensions are essential for ensuring social security for legislators after their terms. He warned that without such financial support, MPs might be incentivized to engage in corrupt practices to secure their financial futures. Critics argue that the repeal undermines the legitimate expectations of those who have served in the legislature, as it retroactively removes a benefit that had been long established.

The repeal raises questions about the principles of legitimate expectation in public law, which posits that citizens should be able to rely on established laws and entitlements. While the government maintains the right to alter pension entitlements, critics suggest that such changes should be prospective rather than retrospective, allowing those who have already served under the previous law to retain their benefits. The debate touches on broader themes of governance and public policy, particularly regarding the treatment of legislators compared to other public officials, such as the President, who retains pension rights under constitutional protections.

Legislators’ pensions: Denying a legitimate expectation

The repeal of the Parliamentary Pensions Act is likely to prompt further discussions on public sector compensation and the ethical implications of legislative benefits. As the government continues to navigate economic challenges, the impact of this decision on public trust and the integrity of the political system remains to be seen.

Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill passed without amendments

“When people see the quality of debate and what members say in this House, they don’t think MPs deserve a pension,” — Harshana Nanayakkara, Minister of Justice

“Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa objected, saying a pension was necessary to ensure legislators had social security after leaving office.” — Sajith Premadasa, Opposition Leader

“However, sound public policy requires that a law should be prospective, and not retrospective.” — Anonymous, Sri Lankan Academic

Legislators’ pensions: Denying a legitimate expectation