Justice Minister says Chief Prelates received incorrect information- but does constitutional convention call for a personal explanation?
COLOMBO, Tuesday – Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara has responded to concerns expressed by Sri Lanka’s Chief Prelates over the proposed extension of the retirement age of superior court judges by suggesting that the Mahanayake Theras had been provided with incorrect information.
The Minister’s remarks have shifted the focus of the debate from the substance of the proposed constitutional amendment to a broader question concerning the relationship between the Executive and one of the country’s most respected national institutions.
If the Government genuinely believes that the country’s most senior Buddhist clergy have misunderstood its intentions, does constitutional convention and political courtesy now require the Minister responsible for justice to travel to Kandy and personally explain the Government’s position?
That question is neither partisan nor confrontational. It goes to the heart of democratic engagement between institutions whose respective roles command public confidence.
Governments frequently clarify legislation before Parliament, answer questions in the House and address the media. Far less common is the situation in which the Head of the Justice Ministry publicly suggests that the Mahanayake Theras have acted on inaccurate information.
If that assessment is correct, some constitutional observers argue that the logical next step is dialogue rather than public disagreement.
A personal meeting would not require the Government to alter its position. Nor would it imply acceptance of the concerns raised by the Chief Prelates.
Instead, it would provide an opportunity to explain the constitutional rationale behind the proposal, answer questions directly and ensure that any remaining differences are based on principle rather than misunderstanding.
Such engagement would also reflect Sri Lanka’s long tradition of consultation between successive governments and the senior Buddhist clergy on matters regarded as having national significance.
Equally, others argue that constitutional reform must remain the responsibility of elected representatives and Parliament, and that governments should not be expected to negotiate legislative proposals outside the democratic institutions established by the Constitution.
That is a legitimate constitutional position. Parliament alone possesses legislative authority, and ministers remain accountable to Parliament for the policies they advance.
Yet constitutional democracy is not sustained solely by legal powers. It also depends upon public confidence, mutual respect between institutions and a willingness to engage where genuine concerns have been expressed.
Whether the Minister ultimately travels to Kandy is, of course, a matter for the Government.
The more enduring question may be whether moments such as these present an opportunity to reinforce public confidence- not through constitutional argument alone, but through dialogue conducted with openness, courtesy and respect.
Whatever Parliament ultimately decides regarding the proposed amendment, the manner in which this conversation unfolds may prove almost as important as the legislation itself. After all, constitutional institutions derive their strength not only from the powers they exercise, but also from the confidence they inspire among the people they serve.
