The Law Association for Asia and the Pacific (LAWASIA) has expressed serious concern over the procedure the Supreme Court followed in hearing the constitutional challenges to the proposed 22nd Amendment, which would extend the retirement ages of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges, the Daily Mirror reported.

The statement, dated 16 September 2026 and issued over the signature of LAWASIA President TL Yap, is confined to procedure. LAWASIA states expressly that it takes no view on the merits of the challenges or on the substantive arguments advanced by any party.

It draws on a report by the Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) dated 7 September 2026, prepared after the CLA President travelled to Sri Lanka to observe the proceedings, and it reiterates an earlier LAWASIA statement of 30 June 2026.

The three procedural objections

The recusal application. Applications seeking the recusal of the Chief Justice, and asking that the petitions be heard by a Full Court of all sitting Supreme Court judges, were declined. According to the CLA report, no reasons were given for dismissing them beyond the Court having jurisdiction to hear the matter. The recusal application had been made on the ground that the Chief Justice would be the first Supreme Court judge who could benefit from the proposed amendment.

The composition of the bench. LAWASIA notes that, with the exception of the Chief Justice, the four judges immediately senior to Justice Achala Wengappuli — Justices Yasantha Kodagoda, A.H.M.D. Nawaz, Shiran Gooneratne and Janak De Silva — were not on the five-member bench. The association acknowledges that seniority does not itself determine how a bench is constituted, and does not question the competence of the judges who sat. Its objection is to opacity: in proceedings of such constitutional significance, it says, the basis on which a bench is constituted “should be transparent and discernible and capable of maintaining public confidence in the institutional impartiality of the Court.”

The right of reply. After oral submissions by the interveners and the State, the petitioners were not allowed to reply orally, though they could file written replies by 3.00 p.m. the following day. LAWASIA describes a meaningful opportunity to respond to material submissions made against one’s case as an important aspect of procedural fairness.

The statement closes by anticipating the obvious rejoinder: “Scrutiny of judicial procedure should not be regarded as an attack upon judicial independence. On the contrary, judicial independence must be safeguarded both in fact and in public perception, and procedural fairness, impartiality and transparency are essential to maintaining public confidence in the Judiciary.”

Where the amendment stands

The 22nd Amendment would raise the retirement age of appellate judges. Six petitions challenging it were filed in the Supreme Court in August, followed by a further petition from Bahujana Balaya. The Court’s determination was expected to reach Parliament in early September, and Parliament has scheduled the debate for 24 and 25 September. The Samagi Jana Balawegaya has called a protest in Colombo on 24 September.

The bill has drawn opposition from within the legal profession for months, including a special general meeting of the Bar Association in July.

Not reported

The Daily Mirror does not say whether the Supreme Court has delivered its determination, or what it held. It does not report any response from the Court, the Chief Justice, the Attorney General or the government, and does not say whether LAWASIA has communicated the statement to any Sri Lankan authority.

It does not give the names of the five judges who did sit, or reproduce the CLA report or the 30 June statement. Neither document is linked in the report, and neither was independently available at the time of writing.

No other verified newsroom had filed on the statement at the time of writing, so this account rests on a single source.