Sri Lanka’s Proposed 22nd Amendment: Key Issues, Confusions & Democratic Risks-by Harold Gunatillake

Sri Lanka’s Proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment: A Comprehensive and Structured Analysis of the Issues, Confusions, and Democratic Risks that the Global Sri Lankan Public Needs to Understand

The proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment in Sri Lanka has elicited significant opposition both nationally and internationally. The government asserts that it aims to address the 1.1 million case backlog by increasing the retirement ages of senior judges.

However, critics caution that this measure may lead to the politicisation of the judiciary and undermine democratic principles.

What the Amendment Actually Proposes

The retirement age for the Supreme Court has been increased from 65 to 67 years.

The retirement age for the Court of Appeal has been elevated from 63 to 65 years.

The tenure of the Chief Justice is now capped at six years, regardless of age,

A parallel bill, described as a hurried Judicature Amendment Bill, has been introduced to raise the retirement ages of High Court and Magistrate judges following public backlash.

These modifications necessitate a constitutional amendment, as judicial retirement ages are constitutionally entrenched to prevent political manipulation.

Reasons for Public Discontent

• The amendment explicitly extends the tenure of the incumbent Chief Justice, thereby giving rise to allegations of selective legislative practices.
• Conflict of interest: The presiding judges who could potentially benefit from the amendment are overseeing cases that challenge
• Misplaced priorities: Citizens question the rationale behind modifying judicial retirement ages before the implementation of promised reforms, such as the abolition of the executive presidency.

Public Confusion

• The modification of judges’ retirement ages necessitates a constitutional amendment rather than a mere voting
• Experts indicate that this measure will not resolve the delays within the judiciary, which are attributable to antiquated systems, insufficient courtrooms, and sluggish
• Additionally, an expedited second bill concerning lower court judges has exacerbated the existing

Legal and Democratic Concerns

• The Bar Association cautions that this poses a threat to judicial independence.
• Several petitions contend that the amendment may necessitate a public referendum.
• Promotions of younger judges could be impeded for an extended period.

Global Red Flags

• The United Nations asserts that this action potentially infringes upon international standards relating to judicial independence. Furthermore, there is concern that investors and donors might lose confidence if Sri Lanka’s judiciary is perceived to be under political influence.

The 22nd Amendment is not merely about extending the term by two additional years. It pertains to who holds authority over the judiciary, the processes involved in lawmaking, and whether Sri Lanka effectively safeguards democratic checks and balances.

Yesterday in Parliament: COLOMBO (News 1st); The proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment continues to draw legal and political attention, with Speaker Dr Jagath Wickramaratne informing Parliament today that additional petitions challenging the Bill have been filed before the Supreme Court.

The Speaker said that, in addition to the three petitions previously announced on August 19, four more copies of petitions relating to the proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill had been received by him in terms of Article 121(1) of the Constitution.

Current Status in Parliament: The bill has encountered numerous legal challenges following its introduction. Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne announced that seven petitions have been formally lodged before the Supreme Court, contesting its constitutionality. Referendum Readiness: As citizens possess a seven-day window to challenge any constitutional bill, the government is currently awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. Minister of Health and Mass Media, Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, stated

that the government is fully prepared to conduct a public referendum should the Supreme Court determine that a two-thirds parliamentary majority alone is insufficient to ratify the amendment. A final court ruling is expected by late September or October.

End