Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has called for a referendum on the government’s proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of superior court judges, warning that the move threatens judicial independence.
“We have to ask the simple question: why must this extension apply to the judges already sitting on the bench today? 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,” Premadasa said in a statement on ‘X’.
Premadasa 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 further said he was grateful to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers for raising what the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), the legal fraternity, and the Opposition have been warning for weeks.
His remarks follow concerns raised by UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, who in a communication dated August 7 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. Satterthwaite noted that while extending tenure could preserve judicial expertise, 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)