Sunday Dec 22, 2024
Sunday Dec 22, 2024
Thursday, 7 October 2021 04:50 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
 |
| SJB General Secretary MP Ranjith Madduma Bandara |
 |
| Former MP Dr. Hemakumara Nanayakkara |
 |
| Former MP P. Harrison
|
Members of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) yesterday filed a Fundamental Rights petition in the Supreme Court challenging the ban on the import of chemical fertiliser into the country.
The Petitioners are SJB General Secretary MP Ranjith Madduma Bandara and former MPs Dr. Hemakumara Nanayakkara and P. Harrison. They are all members of the Samagi Govi Jana Peramuna Association. President’s Counsel Farman Cassim will support the petition.
The respondents are Agriculture Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage, State Minister of Production and Supply of Fertiliser and Regulation of Chemical Fertilisers and Insecticide Use Mohan Priyadarshana De Silva, the secretaries to the two ministries, Dr. Ajantha De Silva of the National Fertiliser Secretariat, the Department of Agriculture and the Attorney General.
The Petitioners state that in April, Cabinet approval had purportedly been granted to a proposal made by the President to impose a ban on the usage of chemical fertilisers and their consequent import.
Subsequently a Gazette (Extraordinary) No. 2246/48 dated 6 May titled ‘Imports and Export (Controls) Regulations No. 07 of 2021’ was issued by the then Finance Minister which contained a list of goods prohibited from being imported into Sri Lanka which included chemical fertiliser and importation of nitrate sources (a composite of organic fertiliser) and thereby effectively prevented the availability of any type of fertiliser in the local market.
Four days later, by Presidential Directive contained under Gazette (Extraordinary) No. 2227/5 dated 10 May, a Presidential Task Force was established for the creation of a ‘Green Socio-Economy with Sustainable Solutions for Climate Changes’ but the alleged policy framework, the Cabinet decision and the said Cabinet memorandum connected to these have not been made available to the Petitioners or the public to date.
The Petitioners state that the sudden decision to ban chemical fertiliser posed a risk to yield output, which would have a significant impact on the revenue of farmers and ability to fulfil financial commitments already undertaken by them while no representation has been given to the farmers in the composition of the aforesaid Presidential Task Force which is mandated to intervene and decide on several matters (e.g., fertiliser, methods of farming, etc.) which directly impact the livelihood of the farmers.
The Petitioners state that the ad hoc, illegal, unjustifiable, arbitrary, inconsistent, whimsical and capricious actions and/or inaction by one or more Respondents has resulted in non-availability of fertiliser (organic or chemical) and similarly circumstanced farmers, denying their legitimate expectation to pursue in the occupation of farming, amounting to gross violation and/or continuing violation and/or imminent violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The Petitioners are seeking leave to proceed in the case as well as a directive quashing the Cabinet decision dated 27 April banning the import of chemical fertiliser.
They are also seeking an order directing the relevant Respondents to make available the required quantity of fertiliser and/or to distribute the said fertiliser in a manner in which the said fertiliser can yield the same quantity of crops or more per acre, as prior to the implementation of the Gazette bearing No. 2246/05 dated 10 May .
The Petitioners are also seeking a directive from the Court to make an order directing the relevant respondents to formulate a national policy and an implementation strategy on the shift from chemical fertilisers to organic fertiliser in consultation with all stakeholders and implement the same and/or formulate a National Policy on agriculture and fertiliser.
They are also seeking interim relief staying the operation of the Cabinet decision of April and the related Gazette notification until the final determination of the case.
