President Anura Kumara Dissanayake defended the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution on Wednesday, saying the reform is intended solely to speed up the delivery of justice, and that his government will not reverse the decision in the face of criticism.
He made the remarks while addressing the national Milad-un-Nabi observance, NewsFirst reported on Wednesday evening. The state festival was held under his patronage at Al-Hilal College in Periyamulla, Negombo, where he also issued a message on the religious occasion.
The President said there was an ongoing effort to create controversy around the amendment, but that its primary objective was to improve the delivery of justice and strengthen public confidence in the legal system.
“The purpose of this Constitutional Amendment is entirely focused on accelerating the process of delivering justice to our people and improving society through justice,” he said. “I assure you that none of these measures will cause any harm to the general public. There will be absolutely no injustice.”
The case he made on delays
Dissanayake built his argument on the length of time cases spend in the courts, asking how citizens could keep faith in a system that leaves matters unresolved for years.
“If a case filed in 2006 receives a judgment only in 2026, or if a case filed in 2017 goes nine years without even a single witness being heard, how can people maintain confidence in justice? That confidence cannot exist under such circumstances,” he said.
He did not identify either case, and did not explain the mechanism by which raising the retirement age of appellate judges would shorten proceedings in the trial courts where such delays occur.
”It will not be reversed”
The President went further than the defence he has offered before, ruling out any retreat.
“Regardless of the minor opposition or criticism that may arise, I assure you that no decision taken on behalf of the people will be reversed,” he said, adding that every advantage, disadvantage and external factor is weighed before a decision is taken. He said his government would nonetheless not hesitate to correct weaknesses if they emerged, describing it as an administration “that listens to the voice of the people at all times”.
That is a firmer line than the one he took at his meeting with the Bar Association on August 12, where he presented the amendment as one component of a broader justice sector overhaul and said it had not been framed with any individual or group in mind.
The claim is already contested
The argument the President advanced on Wednesday is precisely the one the amendment’s critics have attacked. Former BASL President Saliya Peiris called it “completely false” on Tuesday, asking how cases in the High Court or Magistrate’s Courts would be expedited by extending the tenure of judges who sit above them.
The Bill would raise the mandatory retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and that of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65, with the Chief Justice retiring at 67 or after six years in office, whichever comes first. Because those limits are written into the Constitution, it requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
Whether it also requires a referendum is the question now before the Supreme Court. Petitioners argue the changes touch the sovereignty of the people under Articles 3 and 4(c), which would put the Bill beyond Parliament’s reach on its own. Ada Derana counted 13 petitions by August 21, a figure well short of the 37 filings Hiru News reported at the registry, and further petitions have been lodged since — including one by the BASL’s president and secretary, one by the SLFP Women’s Wing, and the first in support of the Bill, from an NPP MP.
The President’s undertaking not to reverse the decision does not bind that outcome. If the Court holds that the Bill requires a referendum, the government cannot enact it on a parliamentary vote alone.
No other verified Sri Lankan newsroom had reported the President’s 22A remarks as of Wednesday night. Ada Derana’s latest-news listing carried no filing on them, and the Daily Mirror’s report on his Milad-un-Nabi appearance reproduced only his written message, which does not mention the amendment.
