BASL’s Case for a 70-Year Retirement Age Is Hollow
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has positioned itself as the guardian of judicial independence, but its opposition to extending judges' retirement ages is increasingly difficult to defend. If BASL can offer its own members a retirement plan with a flexible age between 45 and 70, what moral authority does it have to deny the judiciary the same flexibility?
Two Standards, One Profession
The BASL has partnered with Sri Lanka Insurance Life to launch the “Sri Lanka Insurance Life Rakawarana Retirement Plan,” which explicitly allows legal professionals to choose retirement between 45 and 70 years. This acknowledges a simple truth: experienced lawyers remain valuable well past traditional retirement ages. Yet when the government proposes extending judges’ service from 65 to 67, the BASL cries constitutional crisis.
The contradiction is glaring. BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya warns that extending judicial tenure “undermines public confidence,” but says nothing about the lawyers who cling to practice into their 70s waiting for children or grandchildren to inherit their client lists. If age is a valid concern for judges, why is it not for the lawyers who appear before them?
The Backlog Argument
The BASL claims extending judicial service won’t solve the backlog. They have a point—1.1 million pending cases cannot be resolved by keeping a few judges longer. But BASL also cannot credibly argue that losing experienced judges helps the situation while eight vacancies remain unfilled in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.
Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara has stated that more judges are being recruited, and digitisation efforts are underway. But the reality is that while the government modernises, the backlog continues to grow. Extending the service of competent sitting judges, even temporarily, is a pragmatic stopgap until recruitment catches up—hardly the constitutional catastrophe BASL portrays.
Ministers and Conflict of Interest
Beyond retirement age, Sri Lanka has a glaring oversight: ministers who are practising lawyers. In most democracies, lawyers cannot practice while holding ministerial office due to obvious conflicts of interest. Yet in Sri Lanka, this continues unchecked. If BASL genuinely cared about integrity and the rule of law, it would champion this reform alongside opposing judicial extensions.
It is ironic that the BASL warns against “interference with the judiciary” while tolerating politicians who may use their ministerial office to influence cases involving their clients. Selective outrage undermines the association’s credibility.
The BASL cannot have it both ways. It cannot offer its members retirement flexibility while denying the judiciary the same courtesy. It cannot claim public interest while tolerating conflicts of interest among lawyer-ministers. It cannot oppose judicial extensions as “dangerous” while ignoring the practice of elderly lawyers holding clients for family succession.
If the BASL is serious about upholding the rule of law and clearing the backlog, it should: (1) support limited judicial extensions as a temporary measure, (2) demand filling judicial vacancies promptly, and (3) call for an end to lawyers practising while serving as ministers. Anything less is hypocrisy.
The public deserves consistency, not convenience.