An analysis by SJB MP Ajith P. Perera claims the government has inadequately addressed seven key questions raised by a UN Special Rapporteur regarding proposed changes to the retirement age of superior court judges.
The Sri Lankan government's response to concerns raised by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers about extending the retirement age of senior judges has been deemed insufficient by opposition MP and legal expert Ajith P. Perera. In an analysis titled "The Defence Is Worse Than the Crime," Perera contends that the government's lengthy reply to the Special Rapporteur's August 7 letter leaves several critical questions unresolved.
The proposed 22nd 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 would also introduce a six-year term limit for the chief justice, with retirement at 67 as the maximum age, whichever comes first. According to Perera, who sits on the Constitutional Council, the government cited existing constitutional protections for judicial independence but failed to adequately address concerns about altering tenure arrangements for judges already in service.
Perera argues that the government provided no evidence of comprehensive pre-approval consultations with the judiciary, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, legal professionals, civil society, or academics. He notes that a meeting between President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Bar Association representatives occurred on August 12, after Cabinet approval and Gazette publication, describing this as engagement rather than meaningful consultation. Of seven questions posed by the Special Rapporteur, Perera classified only one as substantially answered, two as partially answered, and four as entirely unanswered.
Further challenging the government's justifications, Perera contends that approximately 95 percent of pending cases as of June 2025 were in lower courts rather than superior courts, suggesting that extending judges' tenure would not meaningfully address the primary source of case backlogs. He concludes that the government's response has intensified rather than resolved concerns about the amendment.