Saturday 29th August, 2026
The JVP-NPP government has responded to UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite’s statement on its move to increase the retirement ages of judges, according to media reports. It has reportedly sought to justify its controversial move by repeating the same old arguments in defence of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution (22A). Satterthwaite in her statement has warned Sri Lanka that its proposed constitutional amendment to extend superior court retirement ages could undermine judicial independence. One could not agree with her more.
Government politicians and their apologists claim that the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and the Opposition have misled the UN, the International Association of Judges, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, LAWASIA, etc., over 22A. What they should realise is that before issuing statements, these organisations conduct in-depth studies of issues and draw their own conclusions. The fact that they have endorsed the position of the BASL does not mean that they have been misled.
Going by media reports, the government in its response to the UN has muddied the water. It has said the retirement ages of all judges will be extended as part of a broad strategy to expedite the disposal of cases and clear a massive case backlog. But it is obvious that it first sought to increase the retirement age of the SC judges, and when it drew heavy criticism, it sought to mask its real intention by undertaking to extend the retirement age of the CA of judges as well. When its move ran into still more resistance, it proposed to increase the retirement ages of all judges.
What has drawn heavy criticism is not the move to raise the retirement ages of judges as such but the fact that the government has sought to extend the retirement ages of the serving judges of the SC and the CA. Hence so many petitions against 22A. The Judicature (Amendment) Bill, aiming to increase the retirement ages of the High Court judges, District Court judges and Magistrates, has not run into resistance, for they are not specified in the Constitution, much less listed under ‘the Independence of the Judiciary’ unlike those of the SC and CA judges.
The SC has twice articulated or reaffirmed the principle that a constitutional amendment altering the retirement age or period of office of incumbent Supreme Court or Court of Appeal judges would affect judicial independence and engage Article 3, thereby requiring a referendum. The principle was expressly stated in the 2022 Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill determination and reaffirmed in a subsequent SC judgement. This has been the position of independent legal professionals as well. They have warned that 22A will lead to a conflict of interest on the part of the incumbent judges who are to hear the petitions challenging it. They have rightly argued that 22A has to be placed before the people at a referendum.
The government is doing everything in its power to shift the battle over 22A to the political front, but the issue has now been internationalised, and the hearing of the petitions against 22A will be under intense international scrutiny.
The government may be able to fool some people in this country with its absurd arguments and rhetoric, but there is no way it can dupe the discerning public and the international community into believing its claim that 22A is not tailored to benefit some serving judges and it is aimed at expediting the administration of justice.
from The Island https://ift.tt/kYpFac4


