Sri Lankan Legal Professionals in UK Voice Support for Extending Judges' Retirement Age
A group of UK-based Sri Lankan lawyers and barristers has publicly expressed support for the proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges in Sri Lanka, framing it as a necessary first step toward comprehensive judicial reform. The development adds an international dimension to the heated domestic debate over the government's plan.
Support Rooted in Justice System Crisis
At a press conference held on August 3 in the United Kingdom, legal professionals called for the retirement age extension while emphasizing the urgent need to modernize Sri Lanka's overburdened justice system.
Barrister Lalith de Kauwe described the proposal as a "practical, reasonable and proportionate" measure, noting it has generated healthy democratic debate. He stressed that open dialogue and consultation are essential for effective reforms, adding that Sri Lanka needs consensus rather than division on matters concerning the justice system.
Key arguments from UK-based professionals included:
The proposal should be viewed as an initial step within a broader reform package
The justice system faces severe structural challenges, including chronic court delays, repeated adjournments, and outdated legal procedures
Reforms must ensure ordinary citizens—including workers, crime victims, and the accused—have access to timely justice while safeguarding due process
The panel featured solicitors Shehan Pinidiya, Frank Chellian, Samarasinghe Methuen, Sumanasena Athuraliyage, and Kumudu Amaradasa, along with New York attorney Sujeewa Weragala.
A Debate in Context
The professionals' support comes amid intense debate in Sri Lanka over the government's proposal to raise retirement ages across the judiciary by two years. Under the proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment, Supreme Court judges would serve until 67 (up from 65), Court of Appeal judges until 65 (up from 63), with corresponding increases for lower courts.
The government argues the extension is necessary to address a crippling case backlog of over 1.1 million pending cases, with only about 20 judges per million people compared to 40-60 in developed countries. Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara has emphasized that retaining experienced judges will help expedite hearings and provide relief to long-suffering litigants.
Mounting Opposition
However, the proposal has faced significant opposition from domestic legal bodies and international organizations. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) unanimously passed a resolution against the move, and the Judicial Service Association also voted to oppose it.
The Commonwealth Lawyers Association and International Association of Judges have urged the government to reconsider, warning that the timing and manner of introduction could undermine judicial independence and public confidence. The Commonwealth Lawyers Association stressed that such reforms must follow transparent, prospective, and consultative processes rather than appearing to benefit sitting judges.
Critics have also alleged the amendment is designed to prolong the tenure of the incumbent chief justice while blocking the advancement of the next senior Supreme Court judge—an accusation the government has denied. Even the Chief Prelates of Sri Lanka's Buddhist sects have written to the president opposing the move.
Acknowledging the Crisis
Despite their opposition to this specific measure, even critics acknowledge the justice system is in crisis. The backlog exceeds 1.1 million cases, prisons hold over 41,000 inmates against a designed capacity of 10,500, and thousands of remand prisoners languish due to delays in Government Analyst reports.
The UK-based legal professionals' intervention highlights that the debate extends beyond Sri Lanka's shores, with expatriate practitioners weighing in on how best to address their home country's judicial challenges. Their support for the extension as part of broader reforms represents one perspective in what has become a deeply polarized national conversation about judicial independence, constitutional integrity, and access to justice.