Judges’ retirement-age Bill due before House tomorrow after President-BASL discussions fail to bridge constitutional divide
COLOMBO – The controversy surrounding the proposed extension of the retirement ages of Sri Lanka’s superior-court judges enters a decisive new phase tomorrow when the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is due to be presented to Parliament.
Until now, much of the argument has centred on whether the Government should reconsider the proposal.
That question appears increasingly academic.
The Government is proceeding with the Bill despite opposition from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and others who have raised concerns not simply about whether judges should serve longer, but about the constitutional mechanism being used to make the change.
The BASL has maintained that the proposed alteration requires approval by the people at a referendum in addition to the necessary parliamentary majority.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s discussions with representatives of the Bar have not produced agreement.
According to the Sunday Times, the President told lawyers that meaningful change could not be achieved without taking risks and indicated that he was prepared to take that risk in relation to the proposed amendment.
That leaves Sri Lanka facing a considerably more important question than whether judges should retire two years later.
How can the Constitution lawfully be changed to achieve it?
Once the Bill is formally presented, the controversy moves from political debate into constitutional procedure. Any challenge before the Supreme Court will place the proposed amendment under judicial examination and determine what level of approval is constitutionally required for it to become law.
That is where the argument becomes especially sensitive.
The proposal concerns the tenure of the very institution which may ultimately have to determine whether the constitutional amendment affecting that tenure can proceed in the manner proposed.
The Government argues for reform. Its opponents argue that judicial independence and constitutional safeguards demand particular caution.
Tomorrow, Parliament gets the Bill.
After that, the constitutional process – rather than the political rhetoric surrounding it – becomes the story.
THE NEWSLINE QUESTIONIf the Government is confident that extending judicial retirement ages is both necessary and constitutionally sound, why not settle the referendum question beyond argument and allow the people themselves to decide?
