Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has expressed gratitude to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, for raising concerns that echo warnings long voiced by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), the legal fraternity, and the Opposition on the government’s decision to extend the retirement age of judges.
Premadasa, in a statement on ‘X’, said the government’s proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of superior court judges poses a direct threat to judicial independence.
He questioned why the extension must apply to sitting judges, warning, “A government does not spend its political capital on a two‑year adjustment unless it knows exactly whose two years it is buying. If a government can decide how long a judge stays, that judge is no longer fully free to rule against the government.”
He stressed that the amendment does nothing to address the backlog of 1.1 million pending cases and insisted that if the government proceeds, it must first explain the implications clearly to the public in Sinhala, Tamil, and English before holding a referendum, as required by the Supreme Court in 2022.
Premadasa’s remarks follow a communication dated August 7 from UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite, who warned that the proposed amendment could undermine judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary.
The proposal seeks to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65, applying not only to future appointees but also to sitting judges. While acknowledging that extending tenure could preserve judicial expertise, Satterthwaite emphasized that reforms affecting judicial tenure require meaningful debate, safeguards, and transparency.
She cautioned that the absence of transitional arrangements or objective safeguards could create the perception that the amendment is designed to benefit specific judges rather than establish a general constitutional principle. Concerns were also raised about potential conflicts of interest if judges who stand to benefit are required to rule on the constitutionality of the amendment.
The Special Rapporteur recommended that any change to judicial retirement age be undertaken through a transparent, inclusive, impartial, and consultative reform process, warning that ad hoc changes without adequate safeguards could pose a serious threat to judicial independence. (Newswire)