Fowzie's 'newspaper ad' apologizing as per the court order

donated by the Government of the Netherlands for disaster management activities in Sri Lanka,regarding the former Minister A. for taking a jeep specially prepared for operations during emergencies like tsunamis for his personal use.H.M.Fowzie publicly apologized to the people of this country.According to a historic order issued by the Supreme Court,with a photograph of the relevant jeep, in Sinhala,Tamil, and English, he had taken steps to publish this apology on the front page of three national newspapers. 

Accordingly, today (25), the relevant advertisement was also published in the Silumina newspaper, stating thathe sincerely apologizes for misusing the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado jeep bearing the number WP KI-4666.

Behind this unusual incident lies a story spanning many years about the misuse of state property and the abuse of power.This special vehicle, valued at Rs. 19,500,000, obtained through a foreign aid loan under an agreement with the International Centre for Emergency Technology of the Government of the Netherlands, was handed over to the Disaster Management Centre on November 3, 2010.However,eleven days later,that is, on November 14, 2010, at around 7.00 PM, Mr. Fowzie, who was then the Minister of Disaster Management, called Ministry Secretary Sitti Marina Mohamed and pressured her to send the vehicle to his residence within an hour.

Although initially reluctant,it was later revealed in court that the Secretary had instructed the then Director General of the Centre to deliver the vehicle to his residence.

In November of the same year, he resigned from the post of Minister of Disaster Management,and from January 01, 2011, he assumed duties as the Senior Minister for Urban Affairs.Although he had no responsibility regarding the Disaster Management Centre,he refused to return the vehicle and continued to use it.Furthermore,during the period from April 08, 2011, to June 21, 2014, he also instigated officials to spend Rs. 1,073,334.93 from the funds of the Senior Minister's Secretariat for the maintenance of that vehicle.It was also revealed that he had used five vehicles, violating the circular issued by the Presidential Secretary in 2010, which limited the maximum number of vehicles an minister could use to 3.

When this vehicle was returned to the Centre on January 20, 2015, Rs. 540,000 had been spent on its repairs.In March 2015, after he was re-appointed as the Minister of Disaster Management, he again took possession of this vehicle,and it was last returned on September 17, 2015.By then, another Rs. 51,100 had been spent on repairs, as stated in the court verdict.

The Supreme Court, having heard the fundamental rights petition filed by Chandra Jayaratne regarding this series of incidents,on September 29 last year, delivered its verdict, stating that the former minister's action had violated the fundamental right to equality enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

The Chief Justice,Preethi Padman Surasena, and Supreme Court Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere, with the concurrence of Supreme Court Justice Janak de Silva, pronounced this judgment.Accordingly,the court ordered him to pay a total sum exceeding Rs. 6 million to the Consolidated Fund of the government, including Rs. 1,664,334.93 for the maintenance cost of the vehicle.Of this, nearly Rs. 1.6 million was to be paid within one month,and the remaining Rs. 5 million within two months.In addition, it was ordered to publish the apology notice on the front page of the Silumina,Sunday Observer, and Saththiyaga Thinakaran newspapers.

Concurrently,the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption had also filed indictments against him in the Colombo High Court,and on August 27, 2024, A.H.M.Fowzie pleaded guilty to all four charges related to the offense of corruption.There, the High Court sentenced him to a 2-year suspended prison sentence for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 400,000.The Supreme Court rejected the argument put forward by the respondent party that a fundamental rights case could not be maintained since a sentence had been imposed in a criminal case, pointing out thatalthough an individual's guilt is determined by criminal liability, fundamental rights determine the constitutional accountability of the actions of the executive or administration.

The Supreme Court strongly emphasized in its verdict that taking an oath as a Member of Parliament and a Minister is not merely a ritual,but a constitutional expression of the social contract between the people and the ruler.The court pointed out that the breach of that oath and responsibility was a harm done to the Republic and the sovereignty of the people, and reminded society once again thatrulers are bound to use every cent of state resources very carefully for the public good.