The government does not intend to confront the United Nations over comments made by its Special Rapporteur, Leader of the House Bimal Ratnayake told Parliament on Tuesday.
“The government does not have to accept the comments made by the UN Special Rapporteur,” Ratnayake said, according to Daily Mirror.
The remarks came on the day the 22nd Amendment was presented to Parliament, and after six petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging it.
The 1978 comparison
Ratnayake drew a contrast with the constitutional transition of the late 1970s, saying the government of the late President J.R. Jayewardene did not allow 12 judges to remain in their posts when the 1978 Constitution was introduced.
“What our government intends to do is to extend the retirement age of all judges. We are not like the J.R. government,” he said.
The distinction he drew — extending tenure rather than terminating it — goes to the heart of the objection raised against the amendment. Critics argue that altering the retirement age of judges already on the bench, in either direction, engages the same principle of security of judicial tenure.
Which Rapporteur, and on what
Daily Mirror’s report refers to the Special Rapporteur’s comments as being “on the 20th Amendment.” The Rapporteur who has written to the Sri Lankan government on this subject is Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, and her communication concerned the 22nd Amendment and its effect on sitting judges.
Satterthwaite’s letter to the President warned that the measure, if implemented as reported, could undermine judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary, and raised concerns about interference by the executive and the legislature. Her objection centres on the amendment applying to judges already serving rather than only to future appointments.
Her concerns are among those cited in the Bar Association of Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court petition against the Bill.
