A proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of superior court judges in Sri Lanka has drawn sharp criticism from prominent legal figure Saliya Peries PC, who warns that pursuing such a measure could permanently taint the legacy of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. The proposal, reported by the Sunday Observer, suggests that the Ministry of Justice intends to place before the Cabinet of Ministers an amendment that would extend the retirement age of superior court judges by two years, along with a similar extension for other judges across the judicial system.
The Proposed Constitutional Amendment Explained
According to reports, the Ministry of Justice is preparing to bring forward a significant constitutional proposal that would alter the existing retirement framework for Sri Lanka's judiciary. Under the current constitutional provisions, superior court judges serve until a defined retirement age. The proposed amendment seeks to add two additional years to that limit, effectively keeping sitting judges on the bench for longer than the existing law permits. A parallel extension is also being proposed for judges serving in lower courts and other judicial bodies across the country.
While proponents of the measure may argue that extending judicial terms retains experienced legal minds within the system, critics like Saliya Peries PC see a far more troubling picture emerging. The timing, the motivation, and the constitutional implications of such a move have raised serious red flags within Sri Lanka's legal community and among political observers who closely monitor the health of the country's democratic institutions.
Saliya Peries PC Raises Serious Concerns
Saliya Peries PC, a respected and senior legal practitioner in Sri Lanka, has been vocal in his opposition to the proposed amendment. His central argument is that extending the retirement age of superior court judges, particularly when done through a targeted constitutional amendment, risks undermining the independence and integrity of the judiciary. More pointedly, he argues that allowing such a measure to pass under President Dissanayake's watch would leave a lasting stain on what could otherwise be a reformist and progressive presidency.
Peries emphasizes that the independence of the judiciary is not merely a procedural formality but a foundational pillar of democratic governance. Any perception that the executive branch is manipulating the tenure of sitting judges — whether to retain favorable judicial figures or to delay the appointment of new ones — strikes at the very heart of the separation of powers. In a country like Sri Lanka, which has a complex and at times troubled history with judicial independence, such perceptions carry enormous weight.
Why Judicial Independence Matters in Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka has faced significant scrutiny over the years regarding the relationship between its executive branch and the judiciary. Past controversies, including the impeachment of a Chief Justice and various instances of alleged political interference in judicial appointments, have made the public and the legal fraternity acutely sensitive to any moves that could compromise the courts' impartiality. Against this backdrop, the proposed amendment is not being viewed in isolation. It is being assessed within a broader historical context of executive overreach and institutional vulnerability.
Legal experts and civil society organizations have consistently argued that genuine judicial reform in Sri Lanka must prioritize transparency, meritocratic appointments, and strict adherence to constitutional age limits — not extensions that serve short-term political or administrative conveniences. Extending judicial terms without a clear, publicly articulated, and democratically debated rationale opens the door to speculation about ulterior motives, regardless of whether such motives actually exist.
The Political Stakes for President Dissanayake
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake came to power on a platform of systemic change, anti-corruption, and institutional reform. His electoral mandate was built significantly on public trust that he would break from the patterns of the past and govern with greater transparency and accountability. It is precisely this mandate that Saliya Peries PC believes is now at risk.
If the constitutional amendment proceeds, critics argue it will signal that the Dissanayake administration is willing to manipulate independent institutions for political purposes — a charge that could prove deeply damaging to his credibility and long-term legacy. The optics alone, regardless of the stated justification, could erode the public confidence that brought him to office in the first place.
Calls for Reconsideration and Public Debate
Saliya Peries PC and others within the legal community are calling on the government to reconsider this proposal and, at the very minimum, subject it to rigorous public debate before any cabinet or parliamentary action is taken. Constitutional amendments affecting the judiciary should never be rushed through without broad consultation with the legal fraternity, civil society, and the general public.
The integrity of Sri Lanka's judicial system depends on decisions being made transparently and with the long-term health of democratic institutions in mind. President Dissanayake still has the opportunity to distance his administration from this proposal and reaffirm his commitment to genuine institutional independence — a choice that could define his legacy for generations to come.