Jul 5: Sri Lanka’s legal experts have voiced concern over a government proposal to amend the Constitution to extend the retirement age of judges, warning that such a move could undermine public confidence in the judiciary
On Saturday, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), international law organisations, and legal experts organised a public debate programme to discuss this “grave concern”
Speaking at the forum, BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya said the BASL had raised objections to the proposal and requested both President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the government not to proceed with the amendment
Amarasuriya stressed that the Bar Association’s position on this issue is one of constitutional principle
“It is not directed against any political party or government, nor is it based on who presently occupies judicial office.”
He added that governments change and judges retire, yet constitutional matters should remain constant, and if the amendments were made, it would lead to loss of public confidence and the integrity of the legal system
The age of retirement of the judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, which has stood at 63 years and 65 years, respectively, from the promulgation of the 1978 Constitution, should not be changed arbitrarily, and such a change is neither necessary nor desirable, the BASL said, stressing the need to protect the rule of law and judicial independence
In a letter dated May 25, 2026, addressed to the President, BASL expressed what it described as its “grave concern” over reports that the Government is considering amending the Constitution to raise the retirement age of judges of the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka and the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
Representatives of two international associations, the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association (CLA) and the Law Association for Asia and the Pacific (LAWASIA), also addressed the event virtually
“When a sitting executive or legislature attempts to alter the tenure of sitting judges during a period of acute political sensitivity or active judicial determination of sensitive state matters, the amendment assumes the dangerous characteristic of an ad hoc, piecemeal and personalised intervention,” CLA President Steven Thiru said
Giving examples of such political moves in the judiciary in Zimbabwe, Hong Kong and other nations in the Commonwealth, by pointing to the Commonwealth Best Practices, Thiru said: “judges must never serve, or appear to serve at the executive’s pleasure, nor should their terms of office be subject to sudden fluctuations resulting from shifts in parliamentary majorities.”
Addressing the forum online from Singapore, LAWASIA President Yap Teong Liang emphasised the importance of upholding the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. He pointed out that executive power must not be exercised in a manner affecting the independence of the judges’ office. (PTI)
