Judge retirement extensions within ICCPR, judicial independence principles — Govt.

Extending the retirement ages of judges is consistent with Sri Lanka’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and international principles on judicial independence, the Government has told a United Nations Special Rapporteur.

Rejecting concerns raised by UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Margaret Satterthwaite, the Government said the proposed 22nd Amendment was part of a broader judicial reform programme and was 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 were aimed at addressing case backlogs and delays, improving access to justice and retaining judicial expertise and institutional knowledge.

The response followed a communication sent by Satterthwaite on August 7, in which she warned that applying the proposed changes to sitting 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.

Under the proposed amendment, the Chief Justice would retire upon reaching 67 or completing six years from the date of appointment as Chief Justice, whichever comes first.

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

Meanwhile, the Judicature (Amendment) Bill proposes raising the retirement age of High Court judges from 61 to 63, while setting the compulsory retirement age of other judges and magistrates at 62. It would also increase 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 serving judges, arguing that excluding them would undermine the objective of retaining experienced judicial officers while expanding the number of courts and judicial positions.

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

The Government further argued that changing the mandatory retirement age through the proper legislative process was not inconsistent with Sri Lanka’s obligations under the ICCPR or international principles relating to judicial independence.

While acknowledging that changing the retirement age could affect the expected tenure of serving judges, the Government said such a change did not automatically amount to political interference.

Several petitions have meanwhile 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” its decision.

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, in its response, reaffirmed its commitment to judicial independence and the rule of law and said it would continue engaging with the Special Rapporteur and other UN human rights mechanisms.