Questions Raised Over BASL’s Approach to Parliament and Campaign Against Judges’ Retirement Age

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has an important role to play in defending the independence of the judiciary and maintaining professional standards within the legal profession. However, questions are now being raised about the manner in which the BASL has chosen to communicate its position to Parliament over the proposed extension of the retirement age of judges.

The issue is not simply whether the BASL is right or wrong in opposing an increase in the retirement age. The more fundamental question is whether a professional body representing the legal profession should approach Parliament through established parliamentary channels rather than relying primarily on a political party or opposition leader to facilitate its campaign.

Why approach Parliament through the Opposition Leader?

If the BASL wants Members of Parliament to understand its concerns about judicial retirement ages, there are several institutional mechanisms available.

It could formally communicate with the Speaker, the relevant parliamentary committees, the Leader of the House or other appropriate parliamentary authorities. It could submit a written memorandum, request an opportunity to make representations to a parliamentary committee, or participate in a formal consultation process.

Instead, questions are being raised about the decision to engage with Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and organise a political event through the Opposition to explain the BASL's position.

Critics argue that this approach creates the perception that the BASL is aligning itself with a particular political camp rather than acting exclusively as an independent professional organisation.

That perception itself is damaging.

A professional association representing lawyers must be particularly careful to distinguish between legitimate advocacy on constitutional and judicial matters and partisan political campaigning.

The retirement-age debate deserves an institutional hearing

There is nothing improper about the BASL expressing an opinion on judicial independence.

Indeed, the independence of judges is fundamental to the rule of law. The retirement age of judges can legitimately be debated in terms of judicial independence, institutional continuity, succession, appointments, constitutional safeguards and public confidence in the judiciary.

But those arguments should be presented to all parliamentarians, not selectively through a political leader.

If the BASL believes that increasing the retirement age would undermine judicial independence, it should publish its legal and constitutional reasoning and make that material available to the Government, Opposition, parliamentary committees and every Member of Parliament.

That would allow the issue to be debated on its merits rather than becoming another political confrontation.

Questions surrounding BASL leadership

The controversy has also generated questions concerning BASL President Rajeeva Amarasuriya and allegations about his political ambitions.

There are claims and speculation that he could seek political office through an opposition political party, potentially including a future candidacy for the Western Provincial Council and even consideration for the position of Chief Minister.

These claims should not be treated as established facts without evidence. Nevertheless, if such political ambitions exist, they raise a legitimate question about whether adequate safeguards are in place to prevent a conflict between the leadership of a professional legal organisation and partisan political activity.

The BASL should therefore be transparent about its institutional position and make clear whether its campaign concerning judicial retirement ages is based exclusively on its professional and constitutional assessment.

It would be unfair to label any individual a political "poodle" without evidence. However, critics may use such language when they believe a professional institution is becoming too closely associated with an opposition political movement.

The appropriate response should not be political name-calling. It should be transparency.

Parliament should examine the wider questions

Rather than Parliament simply becoming another arena for the dispute between the BASL and the Government, Parliament could establish an appropriate committee or inquiry mechanism to examine the wider concerns surrounding the legal profession.

Such an examination should not be designed to intimidate lawyers or interfere with the independence of the profession. Instead, it should examine whether Sri Lanka has adequate professional, ethical and accountability mechanisms for lawyers.

Several questions deserve consideration.

Do lawyers provide proper receipts to clients?

One basic question concerns financial transparency.

Are lawyers required, in practice, to provide proper receipts and documentation for payments received from clients?

Are clients provided with clear fee arrangements?

Are there effective mechanisms for clients to complain when fees are disputed?

These questions should be addressed through evidence rather than generalisations about the profession.

Client-care obligations

Sri Lanka could also consider strengthening formal client-care requirements.

A lawyer should be expected to provide a client with clear written information concerning the nature of the engagement, fees, responsibilities, communication arrangements and the scope of legal services.

A written client-care letter or equivalent engagement document could provide important protection for both lawyers and clients.

Such documentation would reduce disputes and establish a clear professional relationship between lawyer and client.

Qualifications and examination integrity

Another sensitive issue concerns allegations surrounding legal examinations and professional qualifications.

There have been concerns raised in public discussions about whether all lawyers obtained their qualifications through proper examination procedures. Allegations that examinations may have been passed through proxies or other improper methods are extremely serious.

However, such allegations must not be treated as established facts without evidence.

If Parliament believes that a genuine public-interest issue exists, an independent mechanism could examine examination records, qualification procedures and historical documentation, subject to appropriate privacy and legal safeguards.

There should also be no arbitrary time limit that prevents credible allegations of examination malpractice from being investigated where legally permissible.

At the same time, any investigation must protect lawyers from unsubstantiated accusations and ensure due process.

Ethical rules for the legal profession

Parliament could also examine whether Sri Lanka's existing framework adequately addresses professional conduct.

The legal profession requires public confidence because lawyers operate at the centre of the justice system.

Issues that could legitimately be examined include:

• transparency of legal fees;
• written client engagement arrangements;
• receipts and financial records;
• conflicts of interest;
• advertising and solicitation of clients;
• disciplinary procedures;
• complaints against lawyers;
• professional misconduct;
• continuing professional education; and
• standards governing lawyers who enter political office.

The objective should be to strengthen the profession rather than weaken it.

Lawyers entering Parliament

Another important issue concerns lawyers who become Members of Parliament or ministers.

A person can be both a lawyer and a politician, and there is nothing inherently improper about entering politics after qualifying as a lawyer. However, potential conflicts of interest must be carefully regulated.

Where a lawyer holds significant political authority while continuing professional legal activities, questions can arise concerning clients, government contracts, litigation involving the State, access to confidential information and the appearance of preferential treatment.

Therefore, Sri Lanka could consider whether stronger conflict-of-interest rules are necessary for MPs and ministers who are also practising lawyers.

The answer should not necessarily be an outright prohibition. Instead, Parliament should consider clear disclosure requirements, restrictions on particular categories of legal work and enforceable conflict-of-interest safeguards.

The BASL should welcome scrutiny

The BASL has every right to defend judicial independence and express its views on proposed legislation.

But the same principle applies to the BASL itself: professional institutions must also be accountable and transparent.

If the organisation believes that extending the retirement age of judges is harmful, it should make its constitutional, legal and institutional arguments available for public examination.

If it approaches Parliament, it should be clear whether it is acting as an independent professional association or as an organisation supporting a particular political campaign.

Parliament should therefore not simply dismiss the BASL's concerns. Nor should it automatically accept them.

Instead, Parliament should hear the arguments, examine the evidence and question every interested party.

The debate over judicial retirement ages should ultimately be about judicial independence, constitutional governance and public confidence in the justice system — not about which political party has the support of the legal profession.

The best response to the controversy is therefore greater transparency: transparent parliamentary engagement, transparent professional standards, transparent client relationships and transparent rules governing lawyers who enter politics.

If those standards are established and consistently enforced, both Parliament and the legal profession will benefit.