22nd Amendment judiciary debate intensifies as 23 petitions challenge plans to extend judges’ retirement age amid concerns over judicial independence.
The 22nd Amendment judiciary debate has developed into one of Sri Lanka’s most serious constitutional controversies, with questions now focused on judicial independence, accountability and the Government’s determination to proceed.
“The country must have a judiciary that appears pure to the people,” the Soulbury Commission Report observed.
That principle has acquired fresh relevance as debate intensifies over the Government’s constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has publicly said that he is prepared to take any risk necessary to increase the retirement age.
That statement deserves careful examination.
Why is the President prepared to accept such political and constitutional risk over this particular amendment?
The answer has become central to a debate now involving the Government, opposition parties, lawyers, judges, religious leaders, international organisations and the Supreme Court itself.
Twenty-Three Petitions Against the 22nd Amendment Judiciary Plan
Nearly every major political party, apart from the ruling Malimawa camp, has opposed the Government’s proposal.
The Maha Nayaka Theras have also expressed opposition.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka, Judges’ Association, Church of England, Asian Lawyers Association, Commonwealth Lawyers Association, International Association of Judges and the United Nations have also been identified among those raising concerns.
Yet the President has insisted that the Government will proceed regardless of the criticism.
The Government’s reply to the United Nations similarly indicated that it intended to continue with the proposed changes.
At the time of writing, 23 petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court concerning the 22nd Amendment.
Only one reportedly supports the amendment, and that petition was filed by a Government MP.
That numerical imbalance has itself become politically significant.
However, numbers alone do not determine constitutionality.
The Supreme Court will ultimately have to assess the amendment according to the Constitution and the arguments presented before it.
Silence Inside Malimawa Raises Questions
President Dissanayake and the Minister of Justice have spoken publicly about the amendment at different times.
However, several prominent figures within Malimawa, including the Prime Minister, have remained noticeably silent.
Senior opposition figures claim that this silence reflects disagreement within the Government itself.
Some have suggested that the Prime Minister’s failure to publicly defend the amendment indicates that she may privately oppose it.
There are also claims that a lawyer-MP representing the Colombo District asked at the Pelawatta office whether the amendment could be withdrawn.
According to those accounts, the MP received a sharp response from senior party leaders and subsequently remained silent.
A prominent London-based journalist who is described as a close friend of the President has also criticised the amendment.
These claims have added to opposition arguments that the Government itself may not be completely united on the proposal.
The strongest political allegation is that the amendment is primarily intended to extend the tenure of current Chief Justice Priyath Padman Surasena, who is due to retire in December.
The Government rejects that allegation.
Its explanation is that extending judicial service is part of an attempt to address approximately 11,000 cases reportedly backlogged in Sri Lanka’s courts.
That explanation has not satisfied critics.
Organisations including the Bar Association have questioned how extending judges’ retirement ages would, by itself, accelerate thousands of pending cases.
Vasudeva Nanayakkara Backs the Government
One of the more unusual interventions has come from veteran opposition politician Vasudeva Nanayakkara, who is also the uncle of the Justice Minister.
Nanayakkara has defended the proposed amendment.
He argues that extending the retirement age does not threaten judicial independence.
He has also said that even if the question were placed before the people through a referendum, voters would support it.
Nanayakkara has raised another important point.
Those questioning whether the Supreme Court can independently hear the constitutional challenge have themselves filed petitions before that same court.
Under the existing Constitution, the Supreme Court is the institution empowered to determine the constitutional questions surrounding the amendment.
For that reason, Nanayakkara argues that the Court should be trusted without premature suspicion.
That position highlights an important distinction in this dispute.
Political disagreement over a constitutional amendment is one matter.
Whether the amendment itself is constitutionally permissible is another.
Law and Justice Are Not Always the Same Question
Whatever politicians may argue, law and justice are not identical concepts.
A judicial process must apply the law, but it must also maintain public confidence that justice is being administered independently.
That responsibility becomes particularly important when the dispute itself concerns the structure and independence of the judiciary.
Two observations from earlier Sri Lankan judicial history are worth recalling.
Sir Allan Rose, the last British Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, wrote:
“The independence of the judiciary is not secured by the will of the government or the executive. It is secured only by preserving the rule of law to the letter. A judge must deliver judgments not to please rulers, but in accordance with the law.”
Former Chief Justice H.N.G. Fernando made another relevant observation in the Kodikamam Pille v. Mudannayake judgment.
He said that courts must consider whether a change occurs through the practical effect of an action, rather than looking only at the surface meaning of its words.
Those principles now sit at the centre of the 22nd Amendment judiciary controversy.
Critics argue that the amendment may appear neutral in wording while having consequences that could influence the future composition of the judiciary.
Supreme Court Hearing Becomes the Crucial Test
Petitioners challenging the amendment argue that its practical consequences deserve close examination.
Their concern is that extending judicial tenure could create conditions for a judiciary perceived as being more favourable to the Government.
Some opposition figures go further and claim such influence could eventually be used against political opponents.
Those remain allegations and political concerns, not established facts.
Another allegation is that the amendment’s principal objective is to extend Chief Justice Priyath Padman Surasena’s tenure beyond his scheduled retirement.
The Government firmly denies this.
Meanwhile, reports state that a complaint questioning the Chief Justice’s assets has been filed with the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption.
That allegation is separate from the constitutional proceedings and should not be treated as established wrongdoing without investigation.
Petitions concerning the amendment can reportedly be filed until the first day of next month.
Several petitioners have requested that a full bench of the Supreme Court hear the case.
Almost all of Sri Lanka’s leading President’s Counsel are reportedly expected to appear for different parties.
However, the authority to decide which judges will sit on the bench ultimately rests with the Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court’s determination must then be constitutionally communicated to the President and Speaker within three weeks from the first of next month, meaning before the 21st.
Mandate Lawyers Defend the Amendment
Senior lawyers associated with the pro-Government organisation known as Mandate Lawyers have also entered the debate.
At a special media briefing, President’s Counsel Mohan Weerakoon argued that the proposed amendment would not damage judicial independence.
He also claimed that false propaganda was being spread against the Chief Justice.
Weerakoon went further, saying a no-confidence motion should be brought against SJB MP Rohini Kaviratne over statements she made in Parliament concerning the Chief Justice’s birthday.
That proposal immediately attracted criticism.
SJB Media Secretary Waruna Rajapaksa responded on social media, saying he was surprised that a President’s Counsel had made such a suggestion.
Rajapaksa argued that parliamentary tradition and standing orders do not provide a precedent for bringing a no-confidence motion against an opposition MP.
He said such an event had never occurred in Sri Lankan parliamentary history.
President Says Government Will Not Reverse Course
The political direction of the Government became clearer when President Dissanayake addressed the issue during a recent celebration of the Prophet’s birthday.
He declared that the Government would not reverse its decision on judicial reform under any circumstances.
The President also said the benefits of the law should be equally available to every citizen.
He linked the reform programme to the Government’s wider campaign against drugs and other forms of criminal activity.
According to Dissanayake, opposition criticism would not cause those programmes to be suspended or reversed.
That statement effectively removed any expectation that the Government might voluntarily withdraw the amendment before the Supreme Court process concludes.
Bar Association Issues a Serious Warning
Following the President’s remarks, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka issued another significant statement.
It said the main beneficiary of the proposed constitutional amendment would be the current Chief Justice.
The Association noted the widespread public discussion suggesting that the amendment was being introduced for the benefit of the Chief Justice ahead of his expected retirement in December.
However, the Bar Association also made clear that its opposition is based on principle.
Recent parliamentary criticism has targeted judges as well as officials of the Bar Association.
On that issue, the Association has taken the position that judges, like other public institutions, should not be immune from accountability or investigation.
If allegations arise against the Chief Justice or any other judge, the Association says those claims should undergo a preliminary investigation.
It argues that this is preferable to public mudslinging.
The Association has therefore urged citizens and political actors to avoid conduct that could damage the administration of justice while still allowing legitimate questions of accountability to be investigated.
The Real Question Is Larger Than Retirement Age
For many ordinary citizens, an argument over judicial retirement ages may seem distant from daily life.
The legal and constitutional details are complex, and that lack of public familiarity creates opportunities for competing political narratives.
Yet the issue is larger than whether judges should retire at one age or another.
It concerns public confidence in the independence of the courts.
It concerns the relationship between the executive and judiciary.
It also concerns whether constitutional reform should proceed when substantial sections of the legal, political and civic community believe that its practical consequences may be more significant than its stated purpose.
There is an old saying that three things cannot remain hidden: the sun, the moon and the truth.
Politics rarely produces complete agreement.
Nor should disagreement automatically become hostility.
If politicians can approach constitutional disputes with diplomacy, respect and evidence, many conflicts can be resolved without damaging institutions.
Diplomacy, after all, is the art of dealing with people with whom we do not agree.
The Supreme Court will now have to examine the constitutional questions before it.
Whatever the eventual outcome, the Government, opposition, judiciary and legal profession carry a shared responsibility.
The public must not only receive justice.
The judiciary must also continue to command the confidence of the people as an institution capable of delivering justice independently, regardless of who holds political power.
SOURCE:- LANKALOKAYA
