22nd Amendment judiciary reforms threaten judicial independence, Saliya Peiris says, arguing a referendum is essential before changes proceed.
The 22nd Amendment judiciary proposal poses a serious threat to judicial independence and Sri Lanka’s democratic structure, former Bar Association President Saliya Peiris has warned.
Speaking on TV Derana’s 360 programme, the President’s Counsel described the proposed constitutional changes as an irreversible mistake that should not be made.
Peiris argued that the reforms go far beyond a technical legal adjustment.
He said judicial independence forms part of the foundation of popular sovereignty. Therefore, he maintained that approval through a public referendum is essential in addition to a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
22nd Amendment Judiciary Argument Questioned
Peiris also challenged claims that extending the retirement age of higher court judges would help reduce court delays.
He argued that the most pressing corruption and financial misconduct cases affecting the public are generally heard in lower courts.
These include Magistrate’s Courts and High Courts.
According to Peiris, extending the service period of judges in higher courts would therefore not resolve delays in those cases.
“Cases of corrupt individuals are heard in Magistrate’s Courts or the High Court. So how will those cases be expedited by extending the retirement age in higher courts? This is a complete lie,” Peiris said.
His argument directly challenges one of the main justifications offered for extending the retirement age.
Peiris maintained that if the objective is to improve the efficiency of the justice system, reforms must address where the actual case burden exists.
Peiris Raises Concerns Over BASL Internal Debate
Peiris also addressed disagreements within the legal profession over the proposed amendment.
He stressed the importance of preserving the democratic structure of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.
According to him, some lawyers criticise the amendment publicly through media briefings but remain silent when discussions take place within the Association’s Executive Committee.
He also rejected attempts to portray BASL members as political instruments.
Peiris said lawyers should not act as puppets for personal agendas or ideological platforms.
Instead, he argued that professional bodies must retain their independence when dealing with constitutional and judicial matters.
Judicial Reform Must Follow International Standards
Peiris said any changes to the judicial system should follow accepted international standards.
He also called for broad consultation with relevant stakeholders before major reforms move forward.
In his view, the independence of the judiciary must remain protected regardless of political considerations.
He warned that weakening that independence would affect not only the courts but the wider democratic system.
The 22nd Amendment judiciary debate therefore remains focused on a fundamental question: whether the proposed retirement-age change genuinely improves judicial efficiency or creates risks to institutional independence.
For Peiris, the answer is clear.
Any reform that touches the independence of the judiciary must face the highest level of public scrutiny and, he argues, should ultimately receive the direct approval of the people through a referendum.
