The Civil High Court today ruled that the suspension which eventually led to the termination of former Solicitor-General Sharvada Nand Sharma was unconstitutional and illegal.
The Court also ruled that actions taken were done so without proper procedure, and that the advice taken to not properly remunerate Sharma while on suspension, was also null and void.
The matter was heard before High Court Judge Justice Deepthi Amaratunga after Sharma sought judicial review on his termination in 2021.
Justice Amaratunga based his decision on six grounds:
- That the advice given on 14 September 2021, by the Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem to suspend Sharma;
- That the advice, given on 20 September 2021, to suspend Sharma without paying his salary;
- That the advice given on 1 October 2021, that during his suspension, that the Judicial Services Commission would not reinstate his salary;
- That the second respondent, the Judicial Services Commission on 4 November 2021, required Sharma to answer 31 questions to answer; where he sent the reply back in two days on 6 November 2023;
- The decision of the Judicial Services Commission to terminate Sharma’s employment without convening a special tribunal, and lastly;
- The decision of the President, on 11 November 2021, to terminate the contract of the then Solicitor-General on the advice of the JSC.
Based on this, Justice Amaratunga ruled that Sharma was wrongly terminated, making it illegal and unconstitutional.
This is because a tribunal was not appointed to look into the allegations made against Sharma by former Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem.
Ruling
The High Court has ordered that the former Solicitor-General will not be reinstated, however, that the Government compensate Sharma as damage and loss of income, of total $3 million.
Justice Amaratunga said considering all the circumstances, in his mind Sharma’s remedies should be confined to damages, and they are assessed as his lost income for the 51-day period of his suspension amounting to $27,913.49 gross plus eight per cent of FNPF contributions of $2,233.08, or thereabouts.
He said in special damages for his lost income from 10 November 2021 to the date of the hearing which is 581 days at the rate of $199,773 per annum amounting to $317,994.83, from which credit must be given for the $130,373.84 he will have earned from USP that is net $187,620.99 per annum plus eight per cent of FNPF contribution of $15,009.68, or thereabouts.
He ordered that in loss to future earnings where a multiplier of 10 is used considering the circumstances that Sharma has good prospects of employability considering his experience and qualifications and other uncertainties in 22 year time until his retirement at the age of 70.
For multiplier, his annual salary at the time of termination $221,971 per annum so future loss multiplied by 10 is $2,219,710 and eight per cent of FNPF of $177,576.80.
Sharma was not present in court when the ruling was delivered.
