The Joint Opposition has challenged Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara's assertion that no referendum will be held on the 22nd Amendment, arguing that the Supreme Court process remains incomplete and premature declarations undermine judicial independence.
The Joint Opposition has escalated its criticism of Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, contending that his recent statement ruling out a referendum on the 22nd Amendment constitutes contempt of court. Former External Affairs Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris raised the objection while addressing media representatives, arguing that the minister's declaration came prematurely given the ongoing constitutional review process.
Prof. Peiris noted that petitions against the amendment can be filed for two weeks from the bill's presentation to parliament on August 18. The Supreme Court is currently receiving these submissions and is expected to deliver its decision to the Speaker within three weeks. The former parliamentarian questioned how the Justice Minister could definitively predict the referendum outcome before the petition period concludes, suggesting this represented an inappropriate prejudgment of judicial proceedings.
The Joint Opposition convenor further alleged the government was attempting to manipulate the Supreme Court process by simultaneously advancing three separate judicial amendments. He claimed this strategy was designed to divide the available judges, particularly given four vacancies on the 17-member court, thereby preventing all judges from hearing the petitions collectively. Prof. Peiris emphasized that no government body should treat the Supreme Court as a "rubber stamp" and reiterated calls for all sitting justices to participate in reviewing the amendments.
The controversy reflects broader tensions between the executive and judiciary over constitutional reform. Prof. Peiris noted that multiple petitioners against the 22nd Amendment have expressed support for resolving the matter through referendum. He also acknowledged support from religious leaders representing various faiths who have publicly opposed the amendment.
