Daily Mirror - Print Edition

Sri Lanka–Singapore FTA Committee appointed to review agreement: AG informs SC

14 Jul 2020 - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}      

  • The petitioners claim that the previous ‘Yahapalana’ government had not  obtained Parliamentary approval when signing the FTA between Singapore  and Sri Lanka
  • The petitioners said that if the agreement is implemented,  it would be of greater benefit to Singapore and would be highly damaging  to Sri Lanka’s trade and professionals

By Yoshitha Perera   

The Presidential Committee appointed to review the Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLFTA) signed by the previous ‘Yahapalana’ government, is further studying its content, the Attorney General (AG) informed the Supreme Court yesterday.   

The Fundamental Rights (FR) petitions filed by several parties including the Government Medical Officers Association (GMOA) highlighting that the SLFTA was contrary to the Constitution, was taken up before the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Priyantha Jayawaradena and Yasantha Kodagoda.   
The Attorney General had informed the Supreme Court that a committee appointed by the President to review the contents of the SLFTA was studying the matter further.  


The AG also pointed out that there had been some delay in the study, due to the recent situation in the country and requested the court to give time to complete the review.  
The Supreme Court accepted the plea and ordered the petition to be taken up again on November 03 and directed the AG to report the progress of the review on the next hearing date.   


The petitioners claim that the previous ‘Yahapalana’ government had not obtained Parliamentary approval when signing the FTA between Singapore and Sri Lanka.  


The petitioners also pointed out that if the agreement is implemented, it would be of greater benefit to Singapore and would be highly damaging to Sri Lanka’s trade and professionals.  
Therefore, the petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to issue an order nullifying the manner in which the relevant agreement was signed, which is unconstitutional. 

 

 

  • The Supreme Court accepted the plea and ordered the petition to be taken up again on November 03