Lawyers group accuses corrupt politicians of fabricating claims against judicial reforms

The Lawyers for Public Mandate organisation has accused politicians facing pending corruption charges of fabricating claims that the government's proposed judicial reform Bill threatens court independence, following Cabinet approval to raise the retirement age of judges.

Speaking at a media conference in Colombo, representatives from the legal group asserted that the legislative changes form an essential component of the administration's anti-corruption mandate and broader court reforms.

Under the approved proposals, the retirement age for Supreme Court judges will increase from 65 to 67 years, while Court of Appeal judges will retire at 65 rather than 63.

The tenure of the Chief Justice will be capped at 67 years or six years from appointment, whichever occurs first. At the lower court level, High Court judges will see their mandatory retirement age rise from 61 to 63 years, with Magistrates and District Judges moving from 60 to 62 years.

Attorney Akalanka Ukwatta supported the framework by pointing to international precedents, noting that retirement ages stand at 70 in Australia and Denmark, 75 in Canada and Brazil, and remain lifetime appointments in the United States.

Citing the classic work of American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, Ukwatta noted that legal practice relies on experience as much as logic, arguing that retaining seasoned judges will bolster rather than weaken the administration of justice.

The organisation emphasised that addressing acute institutional shortages is vital to clearing chronic backlogs across the legal system.

Attorney Anuradha Kiralawella highlighted that out of 110 approved judicial posts in the High Court, only 93 serving judges are currently in office, alongside significant deficits in physical courtrooms and staff.

Kiralawella firmly rejected allegations that the amendment seeks to favour specific sitting judges, maintaining instead that politicians implicated in past public thefts are raising alarms about judicial independence purely to protect themselves from impending prosecution.