Proposed 22nd Amendment Would Compromise Judicial Independence, Says Civil Society Group

The 'Dinana Dakuna' collective has warned that the government's proposed 22nd Amendment to extend judges' retirement age would grant the executive inappropriate influence over the judiciary, undermining constitutional protections.

A civil society collective has raised concerns that the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which would extend the retirement age of judges, poses a fundamental threat to judicial independence in Sri Lanka. The 'Dinana Dakuna' group issued a statement on Monday responding to recent comments made by the President during discussions with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka regarding the amendment. The collective argued that the constitutional arguments presented to justify the reform lack substantive grounding.

The group contended that extending judges' tenure under the proposed amendment would effectively allow executive influence over the judiciary to become a constitutional reality. The collective emphasized that while governments may reasonably take political and economic risks in pursuit of development projects, jeopardizing judicial independence represents a categorically different and unacceptable form of risk that could destabilize the country's entire constitutional framework.

Additionally, the 'Dinana Dakuna' collective criticized the President's handling of judicial vacancies and promotions, characterizing recent decisions as contradictory and arbitrary. The group alleged that delaying or suspending judge promotions violates their legitimate legal expectations and suggested that linking such decisions to pending court cases, including matters related to the Easter Sunday attacks, amounts to introducing politically motivated criteria for advancement. The collective further disputed the government's assertion that extending retirement ages would reduce delays in the judicial process, stating no logical connection has been established between these two matters.

The statement concluded by cautioning the public to look beyond official framing of the amendment as a measure serving the public interest, suggesting underlying political motivations are driving the proposal.