Former President Warns Proposal Could Affect Judicial Independence
Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe has entered the increasingly contentious debate over the proposed extension of the retirement age of Sri Lanka’s superior court judges, warning that the Government should proceed with caution if it wishes to preserve public confidence in the independence of the judiciary.
Speaking during a youth dialogue titled “Read with Ranil”at the Cinnamon Grand after being questioned by students, Wickremesinghe observed that the proposal had already generated considerable concern within the legal profession and among members of the judiciary themselves.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
He cautioned that the more the Government persisted with the proposal in the face of such opposition, the greater the risk that the neutrality of the judiciary could be perceived as being compromised.
The comments come at a time when the Government is considering constitutional changes that would increase the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. At present, Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65 while Court of Appeal judges retire at 63. The proposal under discussion would extend those limits and, at the same time, increase the number of judges serving on both courts.
The issue, however, is about far more than the age at which judges retire.
Supporters of an extension argue that experienced judges should not be required to leave the Bench at a time when they possess decades of judicial knowledge and when Sri Lanka continues to struggle with a significant backlog of cases.
They contend that retaining experienced judges for a longer period could improve continuity, strengthen jurisprudence and assist in reducing delays, particularly if accompanied by an increase in the number of judges.
Critics see the matter rather differently.
They argue that extending the tenure of serving judges could unintentionally affect the perception of judicial independence, particularly if changes are introduced while individual judges stand to benefit immediately from them. Others point to the practical consequences for the wider judiciary.
Promotions to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal occur only when vacancies arise.
If judges remain in office for longer, vacancies arise less frequently, delaying the advancement of judges serving in the High Court, District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts.
Ranil Questions Move…
Several senior legal figures have also argued that any such reform should form part of broader constitutional and judicial reforms rather than be introduced as a standalone measure.
Wickremesinghe did not suggest that judges should never serve beyond the existing retirement ages. Rather, his concern centred on the process and the possible perception that the Executive was seeking to reshape the higher judiciary in a manner that could invite unnecessary controversy.
He noted that there appeared to be significant resistance to the proposal from within the legal community itself.
Ultimately, Parliament will determine whether the Constitution should be amended. Yet the debate raises a broader question that extends well beyond individual judges or any particular government.
Judicial independence rests not only upon actual independence, but also upon public confidence that judges are appointed, promoted and retire under rules that are transparent, consistent and free from political influence.
That is why the discussion has attracted such close attention. It is not simply about whether a judge serves for another two years. It is about how Sri Lanka wishes its highest courts to be constituted and, perhaps more importantly, how future generations will perceive the independence of those entrusted with interpreting the Constitution and upholding the rule of law.
