BASL urges Govt. not to proceed with 22A in its present form
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has vehemently opposed the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.
The collective strongly urges the Government to refrain from proceeding with the enactment of the 22nd Amendment in its present form, so as to safeguard and uphold the independence, dignity, and credibility of the Judiciary.
In a statement issued today (Aug. 12), the BASL says that although the government’s stated intention of this amendment “is designed to expedite hearings and improve the efficacy of the judicial system, the correlation between the proposed extension of retirement age and the stated objectives remains obscure.”
“The legal community, including the BASL and the Judicial Service Association, have unanimously resolved to oppose the amendment on the basis that it constitutes a direct interference with the independence of the Judiciary. This opposition has been echoed by religious leaders, a wide spectrum of civil society groups, as well as prominent overseas Law and Judges Associations,” the statement points out.
The statement further notes :
The BASL emphasizes that Article 107 of the Constitution, which prescribes the retirement age of Judges of the Superior Courts, is under the heading Independence of the Judiciary in Chapter XV. Its placement underscores that any amendment thereto directly impacts judicial independence. Furthermore, under Article 4(c), judicial power is recognized as an integral component of the sovereignty of the People, while Article 3 affirms that sovereignty is vested in the People and is inalienable.
In Special Determination SC SD 64–71/2022 delivered in 2022, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: “Any Constitutional amendment to the retirement age or the period of office impacting on incumbent judges, whether directly or indirectly, will impinge on the independence of the judiciary and violative of Article 3 which requires a Referendum.”
This finding makes clear that the proposed amendment constitutes an entrenched provision which cannot be validly enacted without the approval of the People at a referendum. If, however, this proposal is placed in the Order Paper of Parliament, any citizen would have the right and entitlement to challenge its constitutionality before the Supreme Court. Such a challenge would inevitably place the Justices of the Supreme Court in an embarrassing and constitutionally sensitive position, as they would be required to determine the legality of an amendment which confers upon them an extension of their own tenure. Such situation may result in an erosion of public confidence in the judiciary which would gravely affect its credibility thereby eroding trust in one of the fundamental pillars of democratic governance.
The complete statement of the BASL is as follows :
மேலும் படிக்க »
இந்த செய்தியைப் பற்றிய கருத்தை பதிவு செய்யுங்கள். மேலும் இந்த செய்தியை உங்கள் நண்பர்களுடன் பகிர்ந்து கொள்ளுங்கள்.
