The Sri Lankan Government has defended proposed constitutional amendments to increase the retirement age of judges of the superior courts, telling the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers that the changes are not intended to extend the tenure of particular judges or influence the composition of the Judiciary for immediate institutional purposes.
The Government’s position was conveyed through Sri Lanka’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations Office in Geneva and other international organisations in Switzerland, in response to an official communication from the Special Procedures Branch of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
The Government said it welcomed the opportunity to clarify the legal, constitutional and policy considerations behind the proposed amendments, including those relating to the retirement age of judges.
Reaffirming its commitment to judicial independence, the Government said it remains committed to protecting the independence, impartiality and integrity of the Judiciary, as well as the rule of law, separation of powers and the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
It said the proposed amendments should be considered within Sri Lanka’s existing constitutional and statutory framework and in the context of what it described as legitimate objectives aimed at improving the administration of justice and meeting domestic and international obligations.
Government cites case backlogs and judicial capacity
According to the Government, the main purpose of increasing the retirement age is to strengthen the capacity of the justice system.
It identified persistent case backlogs and delays, improved access to justice, the expansion of appellate jurisdiction to the regions and the retention of judicial expertise and institutional knowledge as key reasons for the proposed changes.
The Government also rejected the suggestion that the amendments were designed to retain specific judges.
It stressed that the proposals were not introduced to prolong the mandates of particular members of the superior courts or to alter the composition of the Judiciary for immediate institutional purposes.
Serving judges included in proposed changes
The Government also explained why the proposed retirement age would apply to judges who are already serving.
It said the issue had been carefully considered and argued that excluding sitting judges would undermine the objective of retaining experienced judicial officers and maintaining institutional continuity.
The Government said Sri Lanka is seeking to expand the number of courts and judicial positions and that retaining experienced judges for an additional, defined period would support this expansion.
It further argued that experienced judicial officers could provide institutional knowledge and help newly appointed judges and newly established courts operate effectively.
According to the Government, the proposed changes therefore seek to ensure that the Judiciary has sufficient capacity and experience to support the planned expansion of its operations.
Government says safeguards judicial independence
The Government also addressed concerns over the potential impact of the amendments on judicial independence.
It argued that applying the changes to sitting judges was justified in the specific circumstances of the proposals and described the approach as “reasonable” and “rational”.
It further maintained that the approach itself would serve as a safeguard against actual or perceived interference by the executive or legislative branches in the composition and functioning of the Judiciary.
The Government’s response comes after UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite raised concerns with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake regarding the proposed constitutional amendment to increase the retirement age of judges of Sri Lanka’s superior courts.
The Government has maintained that the proposed changes are primarily intended to address judicial capacity, retain institutional expertise and improve the administration of justice, rather than to influence the Judiciary for short-term institutional or political purposes.
Leave your comments
Login to post a comment
Post comment as a guest