22nd Amendment: Proof of the pudding will be in the eating

The 22nd Amendment, a proposed change to the Sri Lankan judicial system, has recently gained traction. The government's commitment to its passage into law is unwavering, with the amendment intending to extend judges' tenure by two years. This extension aims to accelerate the resolution of ongoing cases, benefiting victims who have awaited justice for years and providing the government with the opportunity to bring numerous wrongdoers to justice.

Critics argue that extending judges' tenure could undermine judicial independence and create a sense of indebtedness to the government. They advocate for a more comprehensive approach to constitutional reforms, which should encompass various sectors of the public service and potentially be included in the new constitution promised by the NPP in their election manifesto.

Public opinion surveys consistently indicate that the majority of Sri Lankans prioritize ending corruption and criminality at high levels, emphasizing the need for accountability. Investigations into past misdeeds by politicians have frequently faltered due to a lack of political will, but the current administration demonstrates a clear expression of such political will.

Some opponents perceive the prosecutions as a form of political revenge rather than lawful accountability, while others aim to sway public opinion by questioning the independence of the institutions involved. The credibility of these institutions is crucial. During the recent electoral victory of the NPP, a new group of political leaders emerged, and the post-22nd Amendment period necessitates more than just legal correctness; it demands political wisdom.

Strengthening public confidence in the judiciary is paramount, as the national challenge extends beyond the current government.