Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has demanded a public referendum on the government's constitutional amendment to extend superior court judges' retirement ages, citing concerns that the measure threatens judicial independence by allowing political influence over judicial tenure.
Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has called for a referendum on a proposed constitutional amendment that would extend the retirement age of superior court judges, arguing the move poses a risk to judicial independence. The proposal would raise the retirement age for Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and for Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65. Premadasa questioned why the extension should apply to judges already serving on the bench, suggesting the government would not invest political capital on such a measure without specific judicial appointments in mind.
In his statement, Premadasa warned that if a government can determine how long judges remain in office, those judges lose their freedom to rule independently against the government. He stressed that before proceeding, authorities must explain the amendment's implications to the public in all three national languages and conduct a referendum as mandated by the Supreme Court in 2022. He also noted the amendment does nothing to address Sri Lanka's substantial case backlog of 1.1 million pending matters.
The opposition leader's concerns align with those raised by UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Margaret Satterthwaite. In a communication dated August 7, Satterthwaite warned that the amendment could undermine judicial independence and erode public confidence in the judiciary. She cautioned that without transitional arrangements or objective safeguards, the measure could appear designed to benefit particular judges rather than establish a general principle. She also flagged potential conflicts of interest if judges who would benefit from extended tenure are required to rule on the amendment's constitutionality.
Satterthwaite recommended that any retirement age changes follow a transparent, inclusive, and consultative reform process, warning that ad hoc modifications without adequate protections could threaten judicial independence.
