The JVP-NPP administration is pursuing a constitutional amendment to increase retirement ages for judges, but critics argue the move masks an agenda to retain a specific judge beyond their scheduled departure date.
The government has intensified efforts to raise the retirement ages of judges across multiple court levels, with Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara recently meeting with senior Buddhist clergy to explain the proposal. According to reporting, Nanayakkara assured religious leaders that the initiative was not intended to benefit any particular judge, contrary to public speculation.
Opposition figures and legal associations have challenged this characterization. They contend that the government's plan represents a shift from an initial proposal focusing solely on Supreme Court judges. The expanded scope now includes judges at all levels, which critics interpret as an attempt to obscure the true intention behind the amendment. Opposition sources indicate that the judge in question is scheduled to retire before the end of 2026, suggesting the timing of the constitutional amendment is deliberate.
The government has framed the retirement age increase as a practical measure to address court case backlogs. However, observers question the credibility of this justification, drawing parallels to past instances where politicians made assurances to religious leaders that proved unreliable. The article notes that the appointment of Chief Justice Mohan Peiris was previously criticized as a politically motivated decision by the Rajapaksa government.
Critics have proposed an alternative path forward: delaying the constitutional amendment's parliamentary presentation until January 2027 would test whether the government's stated intentions are genuine. Additionally, some suggest the administration should prioritize its election manifesto commitment to introduce a new constitution and abolish the executive presidency rather than pursuing incremental amendments. The analysis warns that attempts to override public dissent through legislative means risk triggering the kind of public backlash that has toppled governments previously.
