Members of a joint opposition coalition say they will file legal action against the 22nd Amendment

Parties in the opposition have said that they will file legal action against the government’s proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement ages of the country’s top judges.

Members of the Democratic United Opposition, a coalition of parties opposing the government, met British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka Andrew Patrick on Wednesday (August 12) to outline their criticism of the amendment.

They reiterated previously voiced concerns that the process of introducing the amendment lacked transparency and the consultation of key stakeholders.

Background

The government gazetted the controversial 22nd Amendment to the Constitution last Friday, proposing to increase the age limit on Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges by two years.

Several bodies representing the judiciary, lawyers, and opposition parties have strongly opposed the bill, warning that altering retirement ages mid-tenure risks executive interference and damages judicial independence.

However, the government has defended the move as necessary to clear a backlog of 1.1 million cases across the judicial system.

Joint Opposition

Addressing the media after their meeting with the British High Commissioner, former Justice Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris said that the joint opposition coalition will file legal action against the amendment next week.

“We will convince the Supreme Court that this proposed move will not provide any solution to the backlog of cases or the existing delays in administering justice,” Prof. Peiris said.

“Only around 1% of the total number of cases are before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal,” he also claimed.

Opposition to the amendment

Several bodies representing the judiciary, lawyers, and opposition parties have strongly opposed the government proposing this amendment, warning that altering retirement ages mid-tenure risks executive interference and damages judicial independence.

Associations representing lower-court judges have argued that the extension would freeze the career progression for junior magistrates.

Opposition politicians have also previously cautioned that changing constitutional safeguards without widespread consensus sets a dangerous precedent for future governments to manipulate judicial tenure.