The National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ) has urged lawmakers to reconsider how the 22nd Amendment extends the terms of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges, warning that the Bill could require the Supreme Court to hear a case directly affecting the tenure of its own judges.
In a statement, NMSJ General Secretary Sunil Jayasekara said the amendment should be taken through careful multi-party discussion with attention to protecting the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
The conflict the NMSJ identifies
Several parties have said they will challenge the constitutionality of the Bill, which was gazetted and presented to Parliament on August 18. The NMSJ argues this creates a situation in which Supreme Court judges must rule on a constitutional amendment that would extend their own terms of office.
That engages the principle that no person should be a judge in their own case — nemo judex in causa sua, the organisation said.
The Bill raises the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65. The NMSJ described the constitutional provision fixing those ages as an important safeguard for judicial independence. Daily Mirror reported the organisation as citing Article 105(7); the retirement-age provision the Bill amends has been identified in earlier filings as Article 107(5).
Alternatives cited
The NMSJ pointed to arrangements elsewhere: Canada allows provincial judges to sit on the Supreme Court for special cases, and England has used recently retired judges as an additional panel. It noted that Austria, Germany, South Korea, South Africa, Indonesia, Thailand and Türkiye have separate constitutional courts to test legislation.
Sri Lanka has neither, it said, arguing the amendment could have been drafted from the outset to avoid the conflict — a correction it says is still possible.
If the Supreme Court determines a referendum is required, the NMSJ said, the final decision would rest with the people, avoiding judges deciding on their own tenure. It warned that extending sitting judges’ terms without a direct public vote could weaken confidence in the court, and proposed talks with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka to find a mutually acceptable solution.
The intervention adds to pressure from the Bar Association, which has challenged the Bill before the Supreme Court, and from petitions already filed against it.
