Government Pushes Ahead with Judicial Retirement Age Amendment Despite Legal Community Concerns
Talks between the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake concluded without agreement on Wednesday, as the government signalled its firm intention to press forward with the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.
The draft amendment, which seeks to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges, has drawn significant concern from the legal community, prompting the BASL to seek direct dialogue with the President. However, Wednesday's meeting failed to produce any breakthrough, with both sides reportedly unable to reach a common position on the proposed constitutional change.
A Constitutional Crossroads
The proposed 22nd Amendment has sparked debate over its potential implications for judicial independence in Sri Lanka. Critics within the legal fraternity have raised concerns that altering the mandatory retirement age through constitutional means could be used to influence the composition of the bench, undermining the separation of powers that is fundamental to a functioning democracy.
The BASL, which represents the interests of lawyers across the island and has historically served as a watchdog on matters affecting the rule of law, had hoped the meeting with the President would lead to a reconsideration or at minimum a meaningful consultation process before the amendment is advanced.
The government's determination to proceed despite the inconclusive outcome of talks with the country's foremost legal body raises questions about the extent to which civil society voices are being heard in the constitutional reform process.
Broader Implications for Democratic Governance
Constitutional amendments that affect the judiciary carry particular weight in any democratic society. In Sri Lanka, where the judiciary has at various points in history been drawn into political controversy, any move perceived as compromising judicial independence is likely to attract sustained scrutiny both domestically and internationally.
Legal observers note that the manner in which constitutional changes are pursued — whether through broad consensus or by sheer legislative will — often matters as much as the substance of the changes themselves. A government that sidelines key stakeholders such as the BASL risks eroding public confidence in the legitimacy of the reform process.
As the government moves forward with the draft 22nd Amendment, pressure is expected to mount from civil society organisations, opposition political parties, and the legal community for greater transparency and meaningful engagement before the amendment is brought before Parliament.
The BASL has not yet publicly announced its next course of action following the breakdown of Wednesday's discussions.
💬 Join the Discussion 1
See what readers are saying — and add your view.
goverment just wants to keep judges longer, nothing else to it