By The Pulseline News Desk
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has pushed back against President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s (AKD’s) argument that meaningful change sometimes requires taking risks, warning that judicial independence cannot be treated as a risk worth taking.
BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya said the Government may have to take difficult decisions and accept risks in areas such as economic development, international relations and policymaking, but argued that the same principle cannot be applied when the independence of the judiciary could be compromised.
“If the President thinks there is a risk here, the answer is not to proceed with this,” Amarasuriya said, referring to the proposed extension of the retirement age of superior court judges.
His remarks came after President Dissanayake told BASL representatives that he was prepared to accept the political risk associated with the proposed constitutional amendment, including the possibility of losing office, if he believed the measure was necessary to bring about systemic change.
‘Above everything else’
Amarasuriya said he had directly conveyed his position to the President during their discussions.
He acknowledged that there were circumstances in which political leaders had to take risks, but stressed that judicial independence was fundamentally different.
“There are matters where taking risks is necessary. However, judicial independence is a noble concept. It is above everything else,” he said.
According to the BASL President, the concern was not simply about the retirement age of judges, but about the potential consequences of any measure that could weaken public confidence in the independence of the judiciary.
“If there is a chance that judicial independence could be harmed or lost, I think that would be a very serious problem for all of us,” he said.
BASL seeks dialogue, not confrontation
Despite the increasingly sharp public debate over the proposed amendment, Amarasuriya said the BASL was not currently engaged in a confrontation with the Government.
Instead, he said the association and other stakeholders should continue discussions with the Government to determine what would be in the best interests of the country.
“We must agree to disagree,” he said, stressing the need to find some middle ground rather than allowing the dispute to become a direct confrontation between the legal profession and the Government.
Amarasuriya said he remained hopeful that the Government would reconsider the proposal and arrive at a position that would address the concerns raised by the BASL.
However, he also made clear that the association was prepared to take a stronger position if necessary.
He said the BASL would oppose the proposal firmly and use all means available within its mandate if it concluded that the move could undermine judicial independence.
No prediction on President’s next move
Asked whether he expected the Government to withdraw the proposed amendment, Amarasuriya declined to speculate on President Dissanayake’s decision.
He said it would be disrespectful for him to predict what the President might ultimately decide.
Instead, he said he remained optimistic that discussions between the two sides could lead to an understanding.
The remarks suggest that, despite the significant differences between the Government and the legal profession, the BASL is still leaving room for dialogue before moving towards more forceful opposition.
A defining test for the Government
The dispute over the retirement age has now developed into a broader debate over the Government’s approach to constitutional reform and judicial independence.
President Dissanayake has sought to portray the proposed changes as part of a wider effort to transform the justice system, including addressing judicial vacancies, expanding court capacity, strengthening investigations and improving resources across the justice sector.
He has also rejected suggestions that the proposed changes are intended to benefit particular individuals.
But for the BASL, the central issue remains whether the proposed extension could create a perception — or reality — of executive influence over the judiciary.
That difference in emphasis could prove crucial as the Government decides whether to proceed with the proposed 22nd Amendment.
For now, Amarasuriya’s message is that the BASL is willing to continue talking, but not at the expense of a principle it considers fundamental.
The Government may be prepared to take risks to pursue change. The BASL, however, is drawing a line at the judiciary — arguing that judicial independence is precisely the kind of principle that should never become a risk to be taken.
Leave a comment