Proposed Two-Year Extension for Judges Raises Questions Over Judicial Independence in Sri Lanka

Debate Over Extending Judges’ Service

A proposal to extend judges’ service by two years has sparked debate in Sri Lanka, with concerns raised about transparency, judicial independence and the potential political implications of changes to judicial service arrangements.

In a statement on the issue, a political speaker claimed that legal professionals, university academics and civil society groups had expressed strong opposition to the proposal. The speaker also criticised the government for failing to provide sufficient clarity about its intentions and argued that there had been inadequate public consultation.

The speaker further questioned why any extension should apply only to judges, suggesting that similar considerations would need to be addressed for other public-sector professionals, including university professors and specialist doctors.

Concerns About Sri Lanka’s International Reputation

The statement linked the debate over judicial service arrangements to Sri Lanka’s international standing, particularly in relation to allegations of human-rights violations during the country’s armed conflict.

The speaker criticised the United Nations Human Rights Council’s investigative work concerning Sri Lanka, arguing that international investigations and evidence-gathering could expose military personnel and political leaders to potential legal proceedings overseas.

The speaker referred to the principle of universal jurisdiction, under which certain alleged international crimes may be prosecuted by national courts outside the country where the offences are alleged to have occurred, subject to the relevant laws and legal requirements.

The speaker argued that Sri Lanka should be able to address allegations through its own judicial institutions and opposed what was described as external interference in the country’s internal affairs.

The speech also cited the reputation of Sri Lanka’s judiciary and referred to former International Court of Justice Vice-President Christopher Weeramantry as an example of Sri Lankan legal expertise recognised internationally.

Judicial Vacancies and Delays in Justice

Another major concern raised in the statement was the reported existence of vacancies in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

The speaker questioned why judicial vacancies remained unfilled despite concerns about case backlogs and delays in delivering justice. The statement also referred to changes intended to increase the number of judges, arguing that such measures would have limited impact if vacancies were not filled.

The speaker suggested that delays in appointments could undermine public confidence in the judiciary and raised questions about the executive’s responsibility for filling vacancies.

However, the transcript does not independently establish the current number of vacancies, the reasons for any delays or whether the government has deliberately left positions unfilled for political purposes.

Allegations of Political Influence

The speaker argued that decisions affecting judges’ continued service, alongside the failure to fill other judicial vacancies, could create perceptions of political influence over the courts.

According to the speaker, these developments risk damaging the judiciary’s reputation domestically and internationally. The statement also warned that weakening confidence in Sri Lanka’s judicial institutions could have wider consequences for the country’s human-rights standing.

These claims represent the speaker’s political assessment and would require further evidence to establish whether particular decisions were politically motivated.

Call for Transparency and Institutional Independence

The statement concluded by questioning whether the interests of individuals or political groups should be allowed to influence decisions affecting the country’s judicial system and international reputation.

The central issues raised are the need for transparent decision-making, timely judicial appointments, public confidence in the courts and the independence of Sri Lanka’s judicial institutions.

The proposal to extend judges’ service, the status of judicial vacancies and the government’s stated reasons for its approach would need to be examined through official documents and the applicable constitutional and legal framework.