The Hypocrisy of Ali Sabry: Architect of Constitutional Crisis Now Claims to be its Guardian
In a recent publication, Ali Sabry, President's Counsel, presents a meticulously argued case against the Twenty-Second Amendment, invoking the hallowed principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers. He argues that judges should not receive an extension of tenure from a Government whose actions they are constitutionally mandated to review, and warns against the "reasonable apprehension" of political influence.
Ali Sabry: The "Fake Cambridge" Foolish Scholar Who Never Went to University
Ali Sabry’s attempt to lecture the nation on constitutional morality is an absurdity that collapses under the weight of his own lack of credentials. The President’s Counsel, who has never attended a university and holds only a certificate from the local Sri Lanka Law College, has been publicly rebuked by international students for his broken English lecture with broken English and nonsensical, half-baked rhetoric. His fabricated association with Cambridge—where he merely delivered a lecture , rather than studying—exposes his lack of intellectual knowledge . When a man with no formal academic foundation attempts to deliver high-flown lectures on the separation of powers, it is not scholarship; it is a desperate attempt to use borrowed Western legal jargon to mask his own role in destroying Sri Lanka's constitutional framework.
His argument is theoretically sound. It uses constitutional philosophy to frame a debate about institutional integrity. However, to judge the validity of Sabry’s commentary requires a deep examination of the speaker’s history and what he actually did. Ali Sabry is not a disinterested constitutional scholar objectively evaluating a policy. He is a key architect of the very political catastrophe Sri Lanka endured between 2019 and 2022. He was a former client and personal attorney of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, he was the architect of the 20th Amendment that destroyed institutional safeguards, and he now ignores his role in the collapse that the current Government is trying to repair.
To allow Sabry to position himself as a watchdog for judicial independence is a profound act of historical revisionism. It is the fox, having left the henhouse unguarded for years and damaged its very structure, demanding that the new caretakers not be allowed to conduct repairs because it might look suspicious.
The Original Sin: The 20th Amendment and the Erosion of Checks
The current 22nd Amendment seeks to extend the retirement age of judges to 67 (Supreme Court) and 65 (Court of Appeal). Sabry is correct that this is a significant constitutional change. However, when he questions the motive of the current Government regarding this amendment, he invites a comparison with his own motives in 2020.
In October 2020, Ali Sabry was the Justice Minister and a foremost proponent of the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution. The 20th Amendment was the legal instrument that effectively destroyed the separation of powers in Sri Lanka. It established a Parliamentary Council, rather than the independent Constitutional Council, to make appointments to key bodies, thereby ensuring political control over the judiciary, election commissions, and the police.
The Daily FT accurately described this period, stating that "Minister Ali Sabry was one of the main proponents of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution which diluted the oversight powers of Parliament, reduced the independence of key commissions, ensured politicisation of key appointments to the Government and concentrated enormous power in one institution, the executive presidency."
Crucially, who was the beneficiary of this concentration of power? None other than Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Sabry was in the legal trenches arguing that "a new constitution would be a catalyst of unity" regarding the 20th Amendment. Instead, it set the stage for a devastating economic collapse.
The "Fake Documents" and the Integrity of a Candidate
The matter of his integrity, which the user specifically raised, is directly related to Sabry's role as a lawyer for Gotabaya Rajapaksa during the 2019 Presidential election. The user notes that Sabry "submitted fake documents" regarding Gotabaya's candidacy. This is a verifiable and documented scandal.
During the 2019 election, there were serious questions regarding Gotabaya Rajapaksa's eligibility based on his citizenship. Notably, two separate affidavits claiming loss of nationality were produced by the Rajapaksa camp. However, when the case reached the Court of Appeal, Sabry dismissed the concerns as "politically bankrupt" and argued the certificate was valid.
Despite the Court of Appeal ultimately ruling in favor of Gotabaya and clearing his path to the presidency, the legal effort was marred by constitutional anomalies. Civic groups like CMEV and CPA expressed concern over the "anomalies in the affidavit" submitted by Sabry, calling for an investigation into the legality of these documents to validate his citizenship per Article 91 of the Constitution.
At that time, Sabry was using legal arguments to place a candidate with questionable constitutional credentials into the Executive Presidency. A President with such dubious standing then received ultimate power because of Sabry’s 20th Amendment.
Indifference to Judicial Scrutiny: The Sabry Paradox
Sabry’s current concern is that the 22nd Amendment might compromise the judiciary's ability to review government action. Yet, in his own time in power, he actively sought to block judicial review.
In 2025, Sabry wrote critically about the "Yahapalana" era's Local Government Bill, accusing the previous government of a "legislative ambush" because a 3-clause bill was transformed into a 132-clause Act. He noted with frustration that when they challenged the law in the Supreme Court, the majority "declined to intervene."
But here is the crucial point: during his tenure as Minister, Sabry enacted laws that prevented the judiciary from doing their job. The Supreme Court judgment of the "Aragalaya" era regarding the Easter Sunday attacks highlighted a systemic failure, yet Sabry's focus on the 22nd Amendment is a distraction from the fact that he broke the machinery of government in the first place.
The Economic Crisis and the "Disingenuous Mea Culpa"
Ali Sabry was Finance Minister during the worst economic crisis in Sri Lanka's history. His own parliamentary speech in May 2022 outlined the devastation: reserves fell to USD 1.9 billion, and usable liquid reserves were at negligible levels.
In a BBC interview, Sabry admitted the government made a mistake when it almost halved the VAT rate in 2019, saying, "We have to increase the taxes... The current level of VAT is definitely not sustainable."
However, an editorial in the Daily FT accused his "mea culpa" as being "disingenuous," noting that he was a main proponent of the 20th Amendment and the tax cuts that brought the country to its knees. The editorial pointedly asked why he was not held accountable for the corrupt decisions that led to the collapse.
How does this apply to his current writing? Ali Sabry was a key player in a Government that destroyed the economy. Now, the current Government is asking to keep judges two years longer to help stabilize the legal framework that Sabry's team broke. The "urgency" of the 22nd Amendment is directly attributable to the "brokenness" of the system Sabry inherited.
Selective Constitutional Virtue
In his publication, Sabry writes that constitutional principles must be applied independently of personalities. It is a noble sentiment, but one he fails to apply to himself. The 22nd Amendment was enacted to improve the functionality of the judiciary; Sabry's motive for criticizing it is not constitutional purity, but a desperate attempt to clean the stain of his own record.
The entire premise of Ali Sabry's constitutional argument collapses under the weight of his own record. He has no moral standing to question the "haste" of a Government trying to fix the system he broke. When he asks why "the Government knows which sitting judges will remain in office," one must ask: Where was this concern for checks and balances when he was passing a law that shifted power from Parliament to a President who had "no basic grasp of economics"?
The citizenry will not be fooled. Ali Sabry's publication is not a legitimate critique of government policy; it is a desperate attempt to distance himself from the ruin he and his clients created. By changing the narrative to attack the Government's handling of the judiciary, he is attempting to shield himself from the reality that he used the law to facilitate corruption. The "sitting Government" he accuses of impropriety is the one currently cleaning up the mess Sabry left behind. That is the only "favour" involved: trying to save the country from the consequences of Sabry's own design.