Sri Lanka's constitutional landscape has long been a subject of intense debate, and the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution has reignited that conversation with fresh urgency. At a public discussion held at the Capri Club in Colombo, President's Counsel Saliya Pieris, former President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, delivered a compelling and nuanced analysis of whether the 22nd Amendment genuinely strengthens judicial independence or whether it falls short of addressing the real structural problems embedded within Sri Lanka's legal and political framework.
Background: What Is the 22nd Amendment?
The 22nd Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution was introduced as part of a broader wave of governance reforms following the country's unprecedented political and economic crisis of 2022. Proponents argued that it would restore democratic checks and balances, curtail the concentration of executive power, and reinforce the independence of key constitutional institutions, including the judiciary. However, legal scholars and senior practitioners like Saliya Pieris have raised important questions about whether the amendment's provisions are substantive enough to produce meaningful change or whether they are largely cosmetic adjustments that leave the deeper issues unresolved.
Saliya Pieris on the Core Issues of Judicial Independence
According to Pieris, genuine judicial independence rests on several foundational pillars: security of tenure for judges, transparent and merit-based appointment processes, adequate financial remuneration free from executive influence, and the institutional capacity of the judiciary to resist political pressure. He argued that while the 22nd Amendment makes notable strides in some areas, it does not comprehensively address all of these pillars. In particular, the appointment process for senior judges remains a point of concern, as the Constitutional Council—though reactivated under the amendment—still operates within a framework that allows for significant political negotiation and compromise.
Pieris emphasized that judicial independence is not merely a technical or procedural matter. It is fundamentally a cultural and institutional question. A constitution can contain the most progressive language about judicial autonomy, but if the political culture does not respect those boundaries, the provisions remain hollow. This observation is especially relevant in Sri Lanka, where executive interference in judicial affairs has historically been a recurring problem, most notoriously during the impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake in 2013.
The Constitutional Council: A Step Forward or a Flawed Mechanism?
One of the most discussed aspects of the 22nd Amendment is the reestablishment and strengthening of the Constitutional Council. Pieris acknowledged that bringing back the Constitutional Council is a positive development, as it introduces a multi-party oversight mechanism for key judicial and independent commission appointments. However, he cautioned that the council's effectiveness depends entirely on the political will of its members and the transparency of its deliberations. Without clear procedural guidelines, public accountability, and enforceable timelines, the council risks becoming another arena for political horse-trading rather than a genuine guardian of institutional independence.
Is the 22nd Amendment a Misplaced Solution?
Pieris posed a critical question that resonated throughout the Colombo discussion: Are Sri Lanka's reformers targeting the right problem? He suggested that while constitutional amendments are important, they can sometimes create a false sense of progress. The real challenge, he argued, lies in building a legal culture where judicial independence is respected by all branches of government, not just mandated on paper. This requires long-term investments in judicial education, transparent case management systems, adequate court infrastructure, and a bar association that actively holds both the bench and the executive accountable.
Furthermore, Pieris pointed out that some of the most critical reforms needed to protect judicial independence—such as reforming the Attorney General's Department, addressing delays in the justice system, and ensuring the financial autonomy of the judiciary—fall outside the scope of the 22nd Amendment entirely. In this sense, the amendment may be addressing symptoms rather than root causes.
The Role of the Legal Profession
A recurring theme in Pieris's presentation was the responsibility of the legal profession itself. He stressed that lawyers, particularly senior counsel, have an obligation to speak out when judicial independence is threatened, regardless of political affiliation or personal interest. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka, he noted, must function as a vigilant watchdog, ensuring that constitutional reforms translate into tangible improvements in how justice is delivered to ordinary Sri Lankans.
Conclusion: Reform Must Go Deeper
The discussion at the Capri Club underscored a fundamental truth about constitutional reform: amendments alone cannot transform institutions. Saliya Pieris's analysis of the 22nd Amendment offers a sobering reminder that Sri Lanka's journey toward genuine judicial independence requires sustained political commitment, cultural change within the legal system, and a citizenry that demands accountability. The 22nd Amendment may be a step in the right direction, but it is only one step on a much longer road toward a truly independent and trustworthy judiciary in Sri Lanka.