Judges’ retirement age extension Leading Presidents’ Counsel voice serious concerns

 By Yohan Perera 

Five leading Presidents’ Counsel, including a member of the National People’s Power (NPP) Leadership Council and the Executive Council Lal Wijenayake, yesterday protested the government’s move to extend the retirement age of judges by two years. 

Mr Wijenayake, flanked by four others, told a media briefing that the NPP leadership asked him to be silent about the move. “NPP as a party has not made any decision to extend the retirement age of judges. I was asked to keep silent when I mentioned it to the party hierarchy. I have informed the party leadership that I am not agreeable to the move. 

Then the party called for a meeting of its most powerful committee. I told this committee that I am against this move. I have been in the legal profession for more than 50 years and have been engaged in leftist politics for many years. Our duty is to create a civilised society,” Mr Wijenayake said. 

President’s Counsel Saliya Peiris said the extension of the retirement age of judges could result in a conflict of interest in the event a petition is filed against the amendment once it is presented to Parliament. “There will be a question as to how judges themselves could come out with a judgment on their own retirement age,” he said. 

“The reasons which have been put forward by the government for the constitutional amendment pertaining to the retirement age of judges are that it is done to do away with the backlog of cases. There is no point in extending the retirement age of Supreme Court and Appeal Court judges as most of the backlog cases are pending in magistrate and district courts. Also, there are a number of laws which can be amended to ease out the backlog. One is the amendment of divorce laws to ease the pending divorce cases,” he said. 

Asked whether they think that the retirement age of judges are extended in support of Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena, he said the former’s term is to end by November this year. “You decide for yourself on that matter,” Peiris told journalists on that matter. 

President’s Counsel Srinath Perera said all people who love the nation and democracy should come out against this move. “If there are any person in Sri Lanka who loves the nation and are concerned on his or her rights should come forward against this move,” he said. 

President’s Counsel and Acting General Secretary of ITAK M. A. Sumanthiran said it is the Executive Presidency which could be abolished if the government wants to amend the constitution in a hurry. “ It was the incumbent Minister Vijitha Herath who presented a Private Members Bill to abolish the Executive Presidency when he was in the opposition. “ I request the opposition MPs to re-present this Bill to Parliament and see how the government would react to it,” he said.  President’s Counsel Geoffrey Alagaratnam said none of the members in the legal fraternity who oppose this move by the government is prepared to play politics but only want to safeguard democracy. “This Constitution belongs to the people. It does not belong to Parliament or the President. It is a democratic constitution. Democracy means people. Once we elect a President and Parliament is elected, they should consult the people and do what they want. The judiciary is the last place people could go to seek justice; therefore, its independence is important. This amendment is to capture the court. I don’t see much difference between a bribe and this constitutional amendment as it gives something to the judges,” he said.