Sri Lanka has given the United Nations Human Rights Council a detailed response to questions about its judicial reforms, including the proposed extension of judges’ tenure, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism Minister Vijitha Herath said.
Herath made the remarks on Pathikada, the Sirasa TV current affairs programme, NewsFirst reported. He confirmed that international human rights mechanisms had raised the tenure question and that the government had answered it.
The argument: this is what you asked for
Herath’s case is that the reforms respond to recommendations the UN system itself made.
He pointed to a 2016 visit by a UN Special Rapporteur, who spent six days in Sri Lanka examining delays in court proceedings and their effect on people seeking justice. The recommendations that followed, Herath said, included increasing the number of courts, strengthening the Attorney General’s Department, reducing delays in obtaining forensic and analytical reports, and improving both the number and the capacity of judicial officers.
The proposal to extend judges’ service by two years is, on the minister’s account, one component of a broader reform programme aimed at those longstanding problems — and the response delivered in Geneva explained that the measures being implemented are in line with what international human rights mechanisms had previously encouraged.
That framing turns the central objection to the amendment on its head. Domestic critics argue the tenure extension compromises judicial independence; the government’s answer to Geneva is that it improves judicial efficiency, which is what the UN asked for.
Why the timing matters
The remarks came on the day the Supreme Court began hearing a record 67 petitions challenging the 22nd Amendment, and rejected an application to refer them to a full bench.
The amendment would raise the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65, cap the Chief Justice’s tenure at six years, and increase the number of Court of Appeal judges from 19 to 24. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has argued the change requires a referendum because it touches judicial independence.
The government has consistently declined to retreat. Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara said last week that it would not back down, and has rejected the suggestion that the amendment targets any individual judge.
An unclear attribution
NewsFirst’s account says “Sri Lanka’s Special Rapporteur in Geneva” sought clarification before the government supplied its explanation. Special Rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council rather than officials of any member state, so the phrasing is ambiguous — it may refer to a UN mandate holder or to Sri Lanka’s own permanent mission. The report does not clarify which, and does not name the 2016 rapporteur.
What was not reported
NewsFirst did not say when the Human Rights Council raised the question, in what forum, or whether the exchange took place in a formal session or through correspondence. It did not publish the text of Sri Lanka’s response, name the 2016 Special Rapporteur or that visit’s report, or say whether the Council has replied.
No other verified newsroom had carried the minister’s remarks at the time of writing.
