Govt pushes back on Commonwealth lawyers’ concerns over 22A Supreme Court proceedings

By The Pulseline News Desk

Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara has pushed back against concerns raised by Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) President Steven Thiru over the Supreme Court (SC) proceedings on the proposed 22^nd Amendment, after Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa had brought the issue before Parliament.

Premadasa had raised concerns highlighted in Thiru’s report on the proceedings, including questions relating to procedural fairness, transparency, judicial independence and the handling of petitions challenging the proposed constitutional amendment.

The Opposition Leader had also warned that perceptions surrounding the independence and credibility of the judiciary could have consequences extending beyond the immediate constitutional dispute, particularly by affecting international confidence in Sri Lanka and its investment climate.

Responding in Parliament, however, Nanayakkara did not address the individual concerns contained in Thiru’s report.

Instead, the Justice Minister has focused on the status of the CLA, stressing that it is not an organisation formally affiliated with the Commonwealth Secretariat.

Nanayakkara has described the CLA as a private, membership-based organisation, while making clear that his comments should not be interpreted as an attempt to discredit the organisation.

He has acknowledged that the CLA carries out constructive work but appeared to draw a distinction between the organisation and the official institutions of the Commonwealth.

The Minister has also responded to the issue of Thiru seeking a meeting with him.

Nanayakkara has said the CLA’s Sri Lankan representative, former Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) President Upul Jayasuriya, had requested a meeting with him and that he had agreed to meet.

However, he has said the meeting could not take place because he was outside Colombo on the date proposed.

The exchange in Parliament comes amid heightened scrutiny of the Government’s proposed 22^nd Amendment and the constitutional process surrounding it.

The Supreme Court’s determination on the Bill has already become a politically sensitive issue, with the Government seeking to advance its proposed changes while the Opposition and sections of the legal profession have raised concerns over their implications for the judiciary and constitutional checks and balances.

Premadasa’s decision to raise Thiru’s observations in Parliament has also placed the Government under pressure to address concerns that extend beyond domestic political debate.

In particular, questions about judicial independence and procedural transparency can carry wider implications for Sri Lanka’s democratic institutions and its efforts to rebuild international confidence following the economic crisis.

The Government, meanwhile, has maintained that its constitutional and legal reforms are being pursued within the framework of the Constitution and in accordance with the necessary parliamentary procedures.

Nanayakkara’s response suggests that the Government is reluctant to accept the CLA report as an authoritative assessment of the Supreme Court proceedings, instead emphasising the organisation’s private and membership-based status.

The key issue, however, remains whether the specific concerns raised by Thiru over the conduct and transparency of the proceedings will receive a substantive response.

With the 22^nd Amendment already at the centre of a wider debate over judicial independence, the handling of the Supreme Court petitions is likely to remain under scrutiny as the Government moves ahead with its constitutional reform agenda.