Government Rejects UN Concerns Over Judges’ Retirement Age Changes in Proposed 22nd Amendment

written by CN Fri Aug 28, 9:55 pm Source

The Sri Lankan government has rejected concerns raised by a United Nations Special Rapporteur over the proposed extension of judges’ retirement ages, insisting that the 22nd Amendment forms part of broader judicial reforms and is not intended to extend the tenure of any particular judge.

In a six-page response sent to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on August 21, the government said the proposed changes aim to address case backlogs and delays, improve access to justice, and retain judicial expertise and institutional knowledge.

The response followed an August 7 communication from UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Margaret Satterthwaite, who warned that applying the proposed changes to serving judges could raise concerns regarding judicial independence, separation of powers and public confidence in the judiciary.

The government said the 22nd Amendment proposes increasing the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and that of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65.

It would also provide that the Chief Justice retire upon reaching the age of 67 or completing six years from the date of appointment as Chief Justice, whichever occurs first.

The proposed amendment would further increase the maximum number of Court of Appeal judges from 19 to 24.

Separately, the Judicature (Amendment) Bill proposes increasing the retirement age of High Court judges from 61 to 63, setting the compulsory retirement age of other judges and magistrates at 62, and increasing the maximum number of High Court judges from 110 to 120.

Both bills were presented to Parliament for their first reading on August 18.

Responding to concerns that the proposed changes could benefit specific members of the judiciary, the government said the bills “have not been proposed to prolong mandates of specific members of the superior courts, or for the purpose of altering the composition of the judiciary for immediate institutional purposes.”

The government also defended the decision to apply the proposed retirement ages to judges currently serving, arguing that excluding them would undermine the objective of retaining experienced judicial officers while the number of courts and judicial positions is expanded.

It maintained that the proposed amendments would not give the Executive the authority to select which judges receive extended tenure, remove judges based on their decisions, direct judicial proceedings or interfere with judicial judgments.

The government further argued that changing the mandatory retirement age through the proper legal process is not inconsistent with Sri Lanka’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or international principles concerning judicial independence.

It acknowledged that changing the retirement age could affect the expected tenure of serving judges, but maintained that this would not automatically constitute political interference.

Meanwhile, several petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the proposed legislation.

The government told the UN that it would not seek to prejudge the Supreme Court’s determination and would “fully respect” whatever decision is reached by the Court.

The controversy has intensified following opposition from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, which has raised concerns over judicial independence and challenged the constitutionality of the proposed amendment before the Supreme Court.

The government concluded its response by reaffirming its commitment to judicial independence and the rule of law, while stating that it would continue engaging with the UN Special Rapporteur and other UN human rights mechanisms.