Sri Lanka’s Opposition And Bar Association Protest A 22nd Amendment Adding Judges And Two Years To Their Terms
Proposed constitutional amendment on judicial reform draws criticism over potential impact on judicial independence.
The government says the aim is clearing court backlogs. Its critics say the bill was drafted without consulting lawyers or judges. It needs a two-thirds majority, and the government has one.
Hundreds of opposition lawmakers, lawyers, trade unionists and activists gathered at Colombo's main railway station on Thursday to demand the withdrawal of a proposed constitutional amendment on judicial reform.
Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa held a placard reading "Hands off independence of judiciary." Others carried banners saying "Don't touch the judiciary" and "Stop reforms that tarnish judicial independence."
The protest came nearly two weeks after President Anura Kumara Dissanayake's government submitted the amendment to Parliament.
What the bill does
The proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was gazetted by Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara.
It would repeal Article 107(05) of the Constitution, raising the retirement ages of judges of both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal — by two years — and increase the number of judges serving on the higher courts.
Those are the two provisions at issue. Everything else in the argument follows from them.
The two readings
The government's case is administrative. The reforms are intended to reduce delays in the judicial system, it says, and will not compromise judicial independence. Sri Lanka's courts carry substantial backlogs, and more judges sitting for longer is a conventional response to that problem.
The opposition's case is about who chooses. Opposition lawmaker Ajith Perera called the amendment a draconian measure against the people's wishes, alleging that it was created without consulting lawyers, judges or any stakeholders and that it was aimed at manipulating the judiciary for political gain.
Both readings can be described accurately, and this article does not adjudicate between them. What can be said is that the same two provisions produce both: extending terms keeps sitting judges in place longer, and adding seats creates vacancies for a government to fill. Whether that is court reform or court composition depends on a judgment about intent that nobody outside the government can make with certainty.
Opposition lawmakers, lawyers, trade unions and rights activists have expressed concern about independence. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has protested. The government has rejected the criticism and gazetted the legislation while inviting public discussion.
The arithmetic
A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
The National People's Power has held more than two-thirds of the seats since 2024, when Dissanayake won the presidency in September and his party took the parliamentary election that followed, on public anger over the 2022 economic crisis that was widely blamed on years of mismanagement and corruption.
The government therefore has the votes. No debate has yet been scheduled.
⚠️ That is the practical position: an amendment its opponents cannot block by numbers, opposed by the professional body representing the lawyers who work in the courts it would change.
The wider context
Since taking office, the government has launched investigations into alleged corruption and misconduct under previous administrations, with dozens of former officials and politicians facing scrutiny.
That programme is the government's central promise and its principal activity. It also runs through the courts.
⚠️ A separate measure, the Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill, has been the subject of 15 petitions challenging its constitutionality, which the Supreme Court has concluded hearing before a three-member bench. That bill and the 22nd Amendment are distinct pieces of legislation and should not be conflated — but they are both before the courts or Parliament in the same period, and both concern the machinery through which the anti-corruption programme operates.
What to watch
Whether a debate is scheduled, and when. The government has the votes but has not moved. Delay may indicate an intention to consult, or simply sequencing. A date is the first real signal.
Whether the Bar Association escalates. A professional body opposing a constitutional amendment on judicial appointments is a significant institutional objection, distinct from party politics. What it does next matters more than another rally.
Whether the bill is amended before it moves. The government invited public discussion when it gazetted the legislation. Whether anything in the text changes as a result is the test of whether that invitation was substantive.