The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has taken strong exception to what it describes as a grave injustice within the country's highest judicial institution. The association has publicly condemned the failure of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to fill existing vacancies in the Supreme Court, a lapse that ultimately forced Senior Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Dhammika Ganepola, to retire without ever receiving an appointment to Sri Lanka's apex court. The controversy has reignited longstanding debates about judicial independence, executive accountability, and the integrity of the appointment process that governs the nation's most powerful legal institution.
What Happened: The Core of the Controversy
Justice Dhammika Ganepola served as a Senior Justice of the Court of Appeal, a position that placed him among the most experienced and respected members of Sri Lanka's judicial hierarchy. Despite his seniority and qualifications, Justice Ganepola reached the mandatory retirement age without being elevated to the Supreme Court — a promotion that many legal experts and professional bodies argue he was both eligible for and deserving of.
The BASL has squarely placed responsibility on President Dissanayake, alleging that the President's inaction in filling known vacancies within the Supreme Court directly caused this outcome. According to the BASL, the vacancies existed for a considerable period, and had the executive acted in a timely and responsible manner, Justice Ganepola could have been appointed before his retirement date. The association argues that this represents not merely an administrative oversight but a fundamental failure of constitutional duty.
BASL's Official Position and Demands
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has been unequivocal in its condemnation of the situation. In its official statement, the BASL highlighted the injustice caused not only to Justice Ganepola but also drew attention to similar concerns surrounding Justice R. Gurusinghe, further suggesting a troubling pattern of executive neglect toward the judicial appointment process.
The BASL has called upon the relevant authorities to take immediate corrective measures and to ensure that such situations do not recur. The association emphasized that the independence and proper functioning of the judiciary are non-negotiable pillars of a democratic society. When vacancies in the Supreme Court are left unfilled due to executive inaction, it not only harms individual judges who have dedicated their careers to public service but also undermines the operational capacity of the court itself.
Legal professionals affiliated with the BASL have stressed that the Supreme Court plays a critical role in adjudicating the most complex and consequential matters of law in Sri Lanka. Leaving vacancies unaddressed for extended periods places undue pressure on remaining justices and can delay justice for citizens awaiting rulings on important cases.
Broader Implications for Judicial Independence
The incident raises significant questions about the relationship between the executive branch and the judiciary in Sri Lanka. Judicial appointments at the Supreme Court level are among the most sensitive and consequential decisions a sitting president can make. When those decisions are delayed or ignored, it sends a troubling signal about the executive's commitment to maintaining a fully functional and independent judicial system.
Critics of President Dissanayake's administration have pointed to this episode as evidence of a broader disregard for institutional processes and the rule of law. They argue that a government that campaigned on promises of systemic reform and good governance must be held to a higher standard, particularly when it comes to protecting the integrity of independent institutions such as the judiciary.
Supporters of the President, however, may argue that judicial appointments involve complex consultative processes and that delays do not necessarily reflect bad faith. Nevertheless, the BASL's intervention signals that the legal community is watching closely and will not remain silent when it believes that judicial rights and institutional standards are being compromised.
The Human Cost: Justice Ganepola's Legacy
Beyond the political and institutional dimensions of this controversy lies a deeply personal injustice. Justice Dhammika Ganepola dedicated years of distinguished service to the Sri Lankan judiciary. His career at the Court of Appeal represented a lifetime of commitment to upholding the law and serving the public interest. To retire without the recognition of a Supreme Court appointment — not due to any professional shortcoming but due to executive inaction — is a matter that the BASL rightly describes as unjust.
The legal community's solidarity with Justice Ganepola reflects a broader principle: that those who serve the judiciary faithfully deserve to be treated with fairness and dignity by the very government they serve.
Conclusion
The BASL's decision to take a firm public stance on this matter underscores the critical importance of timely and transparent judicial appointments in Sri Lanka. As the controversy continues to unfold, pressure is mounting on President Dissanayake's administration to address the existing Supreme Court vacancies without further delay, restore public confidence in the judicial appointment process, and ensure that no further injustice is visited upon deserving members of the judiciary. The rule of law demands nothing less.