Bar Association Questions Whether Judge Tenure Extension Could Violate Anti-Corruption Laws

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has filed a constitutional petition challenging the 22nd Amendment, raising concerns that extending sitting judges' tenure and benefits could constitute illegal gratification under anti-corruption legislation.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has questioned the constitutional validity of the proposed 22nd Amendment, which seeks to extend the tenure of superior court judges, citing potential conflicts with anti-corruption provisions. In a Special Determination petition filed with the Supreme Court, BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya and Secretary Nalin De Silva raised concerns that extending judges' tenure and associated benefits could amount to "gratification" under the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023.

The core issue, according to the petitioners, is that the same judges who would benefit from the tenure extension may be required to rule on the constitutionality of the Bill itself. The BASL specifically referenced Section 93(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act, which prohibits judges from accepting gratification as inducement or reward for judicial actions, with penalties including fines up to Rs. 1 million and imprisonment up to seven years. The association emphasized that while not alleging wrongdoing, the arrangement risks creating negative public perception regarding judicial independence.

The proposed amendment would increase the retirement age for Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65 years. It also allows for the appointment of five additional Court of Appeal judges, raising the maximum from 19 to 24. The Chief Justice would retire at 67 or after six years in that position, whichever comes first. The Bill was published in the Gazette on August 7 and placed on Parliament's Order Paper on August 18.

The BASL has requested that the Chief Justice constitute a Full Bench of all sitting Supreme Court judges to hear the matter, arguing the case involves grave constitutional issues. The association further seeks a declaration that the amendment requires public approval through referendum, contending that it affects judicial independence and popular sovereignty.