Lawyers Unite Against Proposed Extension of Judges’ Tenure in Sri Lanka
The Sri Lankan government’s recent push to amend the constitution and raise the retirement age for judges has drawn significant backlash from the legal community, revealing deeper concerns about judicial independence in the nation. Despite the unanimous opposition from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), which represents thousands of legal professionals, the government appears resolute in its plan to extend the tenure of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges.
Government Justifies Changes Amidst Criticism
The cabinet’s approval of the proposal on Monday entails raising the mandatory retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years, while Court of Appeal judges would see their retirement age increase from 63 to 65 years. Lower court judges would also receive a two-year extension. Such changes are being justified by the government as necessary to address a substantial backlog of about 1.1 million pending cases in the judicial system.
Government spokesman Nalinda Jayatissa emphasized the need for the reforms, noting a deficiency in judicial recruitment, with only 35 magistrates filling 50 vacancies recently. However, the critics question whether these motivations are genuine or a calculated maneuver for collateral purposes.
BASL’s Strong Opposition
The BASL has emphatically rejected the proposal, branding it “unethical.” During a special general meeting that drew between 3,000 and 4,000 lawyers—both in person and online—all attendees voted against the amendment. BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya warned of severe long-term implications for judicial independence and suggested that if the government was intent on moving forward, the proposition should face a referendum.
This overwhelming resistance highlights a significant rift between the legal profession and a government perceived as undermining the rule of law. The government’s insistence on advancing the proposal despite existing opposition raises concerns about its commitment to maintaining an independent judiciary.
Historical Context and Implications
The current landscape echoes troubling historical precedents; for instance, in 2013, former president Mahinda Rajapaksa faced immense backlash after impeaching Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake under controversial circumstances—a decision that led to his electoral defeat two years later. Critics draw parallels with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s administration, warning that pursuing this amendment risks tainting his legacy in a similar fashion.
A former bar association president, Saliya Peiris, articulated these concerns, stating that such a move would align Dissanayake with past leaders who sought to manipulate judicial independence for political gain, ultimately leading to their own downfalls.
Regional Bar Concerns
Adding to the chorus of discontent, the Bar Association of Jaffna has also expressed reservations about the proposal. In a letter dated July 28, they noted that while they are not opposed to raising the retirement age in principle, any changes should apply uniformly across all levels of the judiciary as part of a wider constitutional reform initiative. They cautioned that passing this amendment in isolation could project an image of executive overreach and erode public trust in the judiciary.
They underscored the principle that piecemeal amendments aimed at “instrumentalist purposes” could threaten the foundations of constitutionalism and democratic governance in Sri Lanka, urging the government to reconsider its approach.
A Call for Judicial Independence
The current conflict underscores a significant crossroads for Sri Lanka’s government and judiciary. As the administration pushes forward with controversial amendments, it risks facing mounting resistance not only from lawyers but also from an increasingly wary public. The demand for clarity and integrity in judicial processes remains paramount, as the implications of these decisions extend far beyond policy amendments; they touch on the core values of democracy and the rule of law.