Sri Lanka's government has moved forward with the 22nd Amendment to extend judicial tenure by two years, aiming to prevent case delays caused by mid-trial judge transfers. The measure faces principled opposition over concerns about judicial independence and process.
The government has demonstrated firm resolve in advancing the 22nd Amendment, which seeks to extend the tenure of all judges by an additional two years. According to commentary in The Island, the administration believes the extension will enable judges to complete existing cases without interruption, eliminating the need for trials to restart when judges are promoted, transferred, or reach retirement age—a recurring problem that has plagued Sri Lanka's legal system.
The government's rationale centres on practical efficiency and justice for long-suffering victims. Many cases have languished for decades, and allowing judges to remain in post longer could expedite resolution. This approach also aligns with public sentiment; opinion surveys cited in reporting suggest citizens prioritise ending high-level corruption and criminality swiftly. However, critics argue the amendment's sudden and ad hoc introduction raises constitutional concerns. Opponents contend that extending judicial tenure without broader institutional reform could create a sense of obligation to the government, potentially compromising judicial independence. They prefer such measures to form part of comprehensive constitutional changes, ideally within the new constitution promised by the ruling NPP during its election campaign.
Concern has also been raised about how the amendment's implementation could affect institutional credibility. As noted in analysis, there is a risk that if accountability prosecutions—which have intensified under the new government—become perceived as political revenge rather than lawful accountability, public confidence in the judiciary may erode. This is particularly significant given that many prosecutions target opposition figures. Commentary suggests that some opponents have launched personal attacks on judges themselves, potentially undermining the very institution they claim to protect. Legal professionals and civil society figures are advised to maintain institutional faith while scrutinising decisions.
Ultimately, the amendment's success will depend on judicial conduct. If judges demonstrate independence and impartiality in their rulings regardless of political considerations, they will validate the extension. Conversely, if judgments appear politically motivated, the reform risks becoming another arena of political contestation rather than a mechanism for genuine accountability.
