New common platform brings lawyers, trade unions and civil organisations into growing confrontation over proposed constitutional amendment
COLOMBO, Thursday – Opposition to the Government’s proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution widened Thursday as civil society organisations, lawyers, trade unions and political activists came together under a common platform to campaign against the proposed constitutional changes.
The initiative, operating under the banner of the Free Operations Centre, adds another dimension to a controversy that has already placed the Government at odds with sections of the organised legal profession over proposals to extend the retirement ages of Sri Lanka’s superior court judges.
The development comes as the Bar Association of Sri Lanka maintains its opposition to the proposed changes and signals that available legal avenues remain open.
The proposed amendment would alter the constitutional retirement arrangements applying to judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, an issue that has generated debate not merely over the merits of allowing judges to serve longer, but over the manner in which any extension would apply to judges presently holding office.
Opponents have argued that changing the tenure of serving judges raises questions concerning judicial independence and public confidence in the courts.
The Government has rejected suggestions that the proposed changes have been designed for the benefit of particular members of the judiciary.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has maintained that the initiative should instead be viewed in the context of broader reforms affecting the administration of justice.
The widening opposition nevertheless presents the administration with a political as well as constitutional challenge.
What began largely as a debate within legal circles over retirement ages has now drawn organised civil society and trade-union interests into the argument.
That matters because constitutional amendments rarely remain purely legal questions once they enter Parliament.
They become questions of political legitimacy, public confidence and – depending upon the determination of the Supreme Court – potentially the direct consent of the electorate.
The coming weeks could therefore see the controversy develop simultaneously on three fronts: inside Parliament, before the courts and in the arena of public opinion.
For the Government, there is still an opportunity to demonstrate that the objective of reform can coexist with consultation and constitutional caution.
For opponents, there is an equally important responsibility to explain why extending judicial service by two years would materially threaten judicial independence rather than simply asserting that it does.
Sri Lanka deserves that debate.
Be that as it may, what began as an argument about when judges should retire is rapidly becoming a test of how Sri Lanka changes the rules governing those who sit in judgment over the State itself.
