Monday 6th July, 2026
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s recent attempt in Parliament to defuse the ongoing controversy over his government’s plan to extend the retirement ages of the judges of the Supreme Court (SC) and the Court of Appeal (CA) has been in vain. He spoke at length, offering excuses for his failure to initiate action to fill judicial vacancies, but they did not sound convincing. They have only prompted the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and other lawyers’ associations to reiterate their opposition to the prospect of a constitutional amendment being moved to raise the retirement ages of the SC and CA judges.
Addressing a public forum, on Saturday, BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya reiterated his association’s opposition to the proposed move to change the SC and CA judges’ retirement ages arbitrarily. The BASL’s position has been endorsed by several legal associations, including the Colombo Law Society, the Colombo High Court Lawyers’ Association (CHCLA), LAWASIA, and the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association (CLA).
CLA President Steven Thiru has gone to the extent of warning that Sri Lanka risks repeating Zimbabwe’s judicial crisis if it goes ahead with its controversial plan to extend the retirement ages of sitting superior court judges arbitrarily. Stating that the CLA did not object to the extension of the mandatory retirement age of judges, given changing demographic realities, Thiru pointed out that the danger lay in the politicised context and particularised application of the proposed move by the sitting executive and the legislature to alter the tenure of a few judges. He stated that Sri Lankan leaders had to heed “the sobering lesson of the Zimbabwean crisis; when a ruling government alters the rules of judicial longevity mid-stream, the damage to the legal fabric is severe. “If Sri Lanka proceeds with an ad hoc, non-transparent extension of Superior Court judges’ tenure without a broad consultative process, it risks plunging its legal system into a similar crisis of legitimacy,” he warned, noting that a structural policy matter must not be perceived as a personalised intervention; to do so would fundamentally invite public cynicism, compromise the appearance of judicial neutrality and shatter the very institutional stability that is to be protected.”
It is hoped that the JVP-NPP government will heed the concerns of lawyers’ associations, abandon its plan at issue and ensure that constitutional reforms follow proper consultation, without undermining judicial independence or public confidence in the judiciary. The JVP/NPP came to power promising a new Constitution and not politically motivated piecemeal constitutional amendments. It said in its election manifesto, inter alia, “A new constitution will be drafted and passed through a referendum with necessary changes, if any, after going through a public discourse” (A Thriving Nation: A Beautiful Life, 2024, p. 109).
As the CHCLA, in a letter to President Dissanayake, has rightly pointed out, “the Judicial Service of Sri Lanka is constituted by officers who ascend through a rigorous hierarchy … This progression is not merely a career ambition; it is a legitimate expectation, recognised and protected by the principles of natural justice and the law governing public service. Officers of the Judicial Service plan their professional and personal lives around the reasonable anticipation of such advancement.” The CHCLA’s views deserve serious consideration.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena, addressing a group of newly recruited Magistrates, at Sri Lanka Judges’ Institute, recently, stressed the need for judicial officers to do their best to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. A country could be destroyed by a bad judiciary in the same way it could be devastated by natural disasters, the Chief Justice said, stressing the need to safeguard the integrity, independence and dignity of the judiciary. His message was loud and clear.
However, some factors that erode public confidence in the judiciary are beyond the control of judges. The alleged government move to extend the retirement ages of the judges of the SC and the CA is a case in point. It is widely seen as an instance of political interference with the judiciary. One can only hope that the Sr Lankan legal fraternity and international lawyers’ associations will be able to knock some sense into the JVP-NPP government, and prevent this country from facing the same fate as Zimbabwe, where a serious constitutional crisis erupted in 2021, when its Constitution was arbitrarily amended to change the judges’ retirement ages. That issue raised broader concerns about the separation of powers and judicial independence. The constitutional amendment undermined public confidence in courts and amounted to political interference with the judiciary. Another crisis is the last thing Sri Lanka needs at this juncture.
from The Island https://ift.tt/Btr0pmX



