The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has rejected concerns raised by one of its own Executive Committee members over how the Association has handled the proposed extension of the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges.

In a letter dated August 11 addressed to Attorney-at-Law Jagath Abeynayaka, BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya and Secretary Nalin De Silva said the Association was constrained to note that Abeynayaka’s own letter, dated August 10, had circulated on social media — particularly Facebook — before the BASL had any opportunity to formally consider it.

Dispute over process

The BASL said matters concerning the Association are ordinarily taken up first by the Executive Committee, then by the Bar Council and sometimes by the wider membership. It expressed regret that Abeynayaka did not attend the Executive Committee meeting held on August 10 — the day his letter was dated and publicly circulated — where the matter could have been raised with fellow members. The committee was therefore unable to consider his concerns with him present and deferred the matter to a future meeting.

The letter noted that Abeynayaka is a supporter of the National People’s Power government and currently holds an appointment as a director of a state institution. While the BASL said political affiliation should not shape how a member engages with the Association, it pointed out that its Constitution expressly bars a member of a recognised political party from serving on the Executive Committee.

Timing of the proposal

The BASL restated that its opposition to raising the retirement age rests on judicial independence, the integrity of constitutional processes and public confidence in the administration of justice.

It observed that the next Supreme Court judge due to retire is the Chief Justice, on December 1, 2026, and that six Supreme Court judges — including two Chief Justices — have retired since the present government took office without any proposal being made at the time to extend their tenures. Against that background, the BASL said, the timing of the current proposal had inevitably fuelled speculation that the amendment could allow the incumbent Chief Justice to stay on.

The Association drew a distinction between legitimate criticism of a proposed constitutional amendment and statements that descend into personal attacks on individual judges, and said changes affecting judicial tenure demand the “greatest care, transparency and institutional consultation.”

The exchange comes as President Anura Kumara Dissanayake prepares to meet the BASL over the same proposal.