The local and global dynamics of Sri Lanka’s 22nd Amendment
Beyond noise and acrimony: by Sasanka Perera (The writer is on X as @sasmester) Background The Sri Lankan government has proposed to introduce the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution focused on increasing the retirement age for Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges. Coupled with parallel legislative adjustments to the Judicature Act of 1978 governing […]
In Sri Lanka, the government has proposed introducing the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which would increase the retirement age for Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges to 67 and 65 years, respectively. This proposal, coupled with adjustments to the Judicature Act of 1978 governing lower-tier courts, has drawn criticism from domestic legal bodies, opposition parties, human rights activists and international organizations.
The Chief Justice's retirement age would be set at 67 years or after completing six years in office, whichever comes first. The government's rationale behind the proposal is that it is necessary for the efficiency of judicial administration and to retain experienced judges for an additional two years, thereby maintaining case disposal rates and preventing systemic paralysis.
Critics, however, suspect that the amendment may be designed to benefit specific high-ranking judges nearing retirement age while overseeing politically sensitive cases. They argue that extending the tenure of sitting judges could compromise the perception of judicial neutrality. Despite these concerns, the opposition has not become a significant issue due to the country's fractured and delegitimized opposition.
Written by urgent.news from The Island Sri Lanka's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
