An Attorney-at-Law and member of the National People's Power has filed a Supreme Court petition arguing that the proposed 22nd Amendment requires public approval through referendum, framing the dispute as a matter of judicial independence rather than partisan politics.
A constitutional challenge to the proposed 22nd Amendment has been lodged with Sri Lanka's Supreme Court by Lal Wijenayake, an Attorney-at-Law and member of the Executive Committee of the National People's Power. Wijenayake's petition contends that the amendment cannot proceed without approval from voters through a national referendum.
Wijenayake has characterized the dispute as fundamentally separate from typical government-opposition disagreements. According to his statement, the core issue centres on protecting judicial independence and safeguarding citizens' rights to democratic governance, rather than defending any particular political party's interests.
Beyond Wijenayake's individual petition, a second challenge has been filed by Lawyers for Democracy, an organization where Wijenayake serves as convener and founding member. This petition similarly argues that the 22nd Amendment conflicts with Article 3 of the Constitution and therefore requires referendum approval by the public.
Wijenayake has emphasized that the question facing society concerns the preservation of rights secured through historical struggles for democratic institutions, positioning the amendment's implications as extending beyond immediate political concerns. With the deadline for submitting petitions set to expire imminently, these filings represent the culmination of legal efforts to block or modify the proposed constitutional change before parliamentary consideration concludes.
