A Question of Legacy: The Chief Justice, Judicial Independence, and the Constitution
Civil society challenges the government on constitutional reform and judicial integrity
By Legal Correspondent
A significant constitutional debate is unfolding in Sri Lanka, raising questions about the integrity of the judiciary and the government's commitment to judicial independence. At the centre of this discussion is a proposal to extend the tenure of the Chief Justice, a move that civil society organisation Vinivida Padanama has urged President Anura Dissanayake to reject.
In a formal letter dated 04 July 2026, Mr. Nagananda Kodituwakku, Leader of Vinivida Padanama, laid out a case grounded in constitutional principles and historical precedent. While the government's proposed constitutional amendment has not yet been officially gazetted, the organisation argues that proceeding with such a measure at this time would undermine the judiciary's hard-won independence and betray the trust of the people.
The Case Against the Amendment
The organisation's primary argument rests on the principle of the separation of powers and the sovereignty of the people. The letter references the constitutional framework, specifically Articles 3 and 4, which vest legislative, executive, and judicial power in the people. The argument is that the government has a constitutional duty to protect these rights, not to diminish them through amendments that could be perceived as serving the interests of a single individual.
The letter further argues that while the Chief Justice has publicly spoken about the importance of judicial independence, his actions have not always aligned with these declarations. The organisation specifically references the ongoing fundamental rights case (SC/FR/7/2025) as evidence. They assert that the Chief Justice has failed to demonstrate the "strength of heart and character" required to correct a serious wrong, suggesting that his decisions in that case indicate an inability to act independently of external pressures or to uphold the "rule of law" and "people's sovereignty" when it is most needed. The argument posits that if a Chief Justice will not protect the Constitution from illegal usurpation, then his extension in office serves no purpose.
Historical Shadow: The 1988 Precedent
A significant portion of the argument draws on historical parallels to 1988, a period of deep constitutional crisis. The letter references the events of April and May 1988 under the J.R. Jayawardene administration, which saw the illegal enactment of the 99A Constitutional Amendment.
The 99A Amendment allegedly facilitated the appointment of MPs by political party secretaries, bypassing the electorate's will—a violation of the people's sovereign right to choose their representatives. This amendment was passed, according to the letter, without proper parliamentary procedures and despite being rejected by the public, setting a dangerous precedent for undermining popular sovereignty.
Vinivida Padanama’s letter implies that the current proposal to extend the Chief Justice’s tenure could be a similar exercise in "constitutional manipulation" if it is used to bypass standard retirement ages for political expediency.
A Legacy of Resistance
Sri Lanka’s judiciary has a history of resistance against executive overreach. The 1988 crisis is a powerful reminder of what happens when the executive and legislature attempt to subvert the constitution. The letter references Article 82(6) of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court the power to review and invalidate unconstitutional amendments, asserting that the Supreme Court itself should be the protector of the people's rights against arbitrary amendments.
The core of the argument is that the President, by acceding to this amendment, could be seen as repeating the mistakes of the past, which involved coercing Supreme Court judges to accept an unconstitutional amendment. The organisation argues that the Chief Justice should be the guardian of these constitutional safeguards, rather than a beneficiary of a change that weakens them.
The Integrity of the Judiciary
The letter concludes by emphasising that the proposed amendment will undermine the legal aspirations of lower court judges, including Magistrates, District Judges, and High Court Judges. The argument is that if the highest court is seen as serving the executive, then the independence of the entire judiciary is compromised.
The suggestion is that if the Chief Justice wants to leave a legacy worthy of the office, he should demonstrate his commitment to justice by protecting the constitution, rather than attempting to extend his tenure through what the organisation alleges is a politically motivated amendment.
Vinivida Padanama is not asking for the Chief Justice to be removed; rather, they are asking the President to ensure that the judiciary remains free from political interference by rejecting the proposed constitutional amendment. They argue that true judicial independence can only be achieved when constitutional amendments are made for the good of the people, not for the benefit of any single officeholder.