The “Dinana Dakuna” collective has claimed that the President’s attempt to alter the retirement age of judges through the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution would turn executive influence over the judiciary into a reality.
The collective emphasized that taking any “risk” concerning the independence of the judiciary is entirely unacceptable.
In a press release issued today (14), the “Dinana Dakuna” collective responded to views expressed by the President during a discussion with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) regarding the proposed extension of judges’ retirement age.
The collective stated that the arguments presented by the President regarding the introduction of the 22nd Amendment and the enhancement of judicial efficiency lacked sufficient substance.
It further stated that unilaterally making public the views expressed during the discussion constituted another arbitrary act by the President. The collective reiterated that taking risks concerning the independence of the judiciary, which forms an integral part of the sovereignty of the people, is entirely unacceptable.
The organization noted that while the executive may take political risks in relation to socio-economic development projects, taking risks concerning the extension of judges’ tenure at the expense of judicial independence could threaten the country’s entire constitutional framework.
The “Dinana Dakuna” collective further stated that it believes the proposed 22nd Amendment would make executive influence over the judiciary a reality.
Meanwhile, the collective described the President’s statements regarding the filling of judicial vacancies as contradictory. The release stated that arbitrarily delaying or suspending the promotions of judges constitutes a blatant violation of their right to have their legitimate legal expectations respected.
The collective also pointed out that suspending promotions based on legal proceedings, including the Easter Sunday attack cases pending before the High Court, suggests that the President is introducing arbitrary criteria for the promotion of judges.
It further stated that the President had failed to establish any logical connection between extending the retirement age of judges through the proposed 22nd Amendment and efforts to reduce delays in the judicial process.
The “Dinana Dakuna” collective concluded by emphasizing that when the proposed 22nd Amendment is described as a risk being taken in the public interest, the public should understand the political reality underlying the proposal.
