The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, has raised concerns over Sri Lanka’s proposed constitutional amendment to increase the retirement age of superior court judges, warning that the move could affect judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary.
In a communication to the Sri Lankan Government dated August 7, 2026, Satterthwaite said the proposed amendment, in its reported form and implications, may not be consistent with international human rights standards relating to judicial independence and the right to a fair trial.
Under the existing Constitution, Supreme Court judges are required to retire at 65, while Court of Appeal judges retire at 63. According to the Special Rapporteur, the proposed amendment would increase these limits by two years, to 67 and 65 respectively.
She noted that although the proposed amendment has reportedly been presented as an administrative reform, its precise wording has not yet been officially published. She also said the amendment is reportedly intended to apply to sitting judges rather than only to judges appointed in the future.
Satterthwaite said judicial tenure is a fundamental safeguard of judicial independence and referred to Sri Lanka’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), particularly the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.
She warned that immediately extending the tenure of sitting judges through an ad hoc constitutional amendment could raise concerns about executive and legislative interference in the judiciary.
The Special Rapporteur also expressed concern that the proposed changes could potentially prolong the mandates of specific sitting judges, even if no individual judges had been expressly identified as beneficiaries.
According to the communication, the absence of transitional arrangements and other objective safeguards could create a perception that the amendment is intended to alter the composition of the judiciary for immediate institutional purposes rather than establish a generally applicable constitutional rule.
She further raised concerns about possible conflicts of interest if judges who benefit from the extension later have to consider the constitutionality of the amendment itself.
Satterthwaite stressed that changes to judicial retirement ages can be justified in certain circumstances, including preserving judicial expertise and institutional continuity, but said such reforms require meaningful consultation, robust safeguards and careful consideration of their impact on judicial independence.
She recommended that any amendment concerning the retirement age of judges be pursued through a transparent, inclusive, impartial, consultative and comprehensive justice reform process.
The Special Rapporteur has asked the Sri Lankan Government to provide details of the current draft and status of the proposed amendment, its rationale, and the reasons for applying the change to currently serving judges.
She also sought information on safeguards against executive or legislative interference, consultations held with the judiciary, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, legal professionals, civil society and academics, as well as any assessment of the amendment’s potential impact on public confidence in judicial independence and impartiality.
The communication states that the Special Rapporteur’s letter and any response from the Sri Lankan Government will be made public through the UN communications reporting website and subsequently included in a report to the Human Rights Council.
The communication was signed by Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
Mahesh Thursday, 13 August 2026 06:27 AM
This is not a good move and any changes can be reflected via a proposed constitution. Judges independence is very essential in any democracy and cannot be compromised at any cost
Lion Thursday, 13 August 2026 08:02 AM
This is the wish of the people, sovereignty of the people, rests on them , so they need it and let them have it.
S P Thursday, 13 August 2026 09:30 AM
Did they have it in their manifesto? No. What they had was abolition of the presidential constitution. Then how come it’s the wish of the people?
Lower the age Thursday, 13 August 2026 11:51 AM
I don't understand the attitude and mindset of the west. They have to poke their nose into every countires internal affairs. As if they have resolved all their issues. Can someone explain how the extending the retired age jeopardises judges independence? So suppose if the retirement age is reduced to say 35 year the judges will have near 100% independence? If that is so then the age should be made 30 years.
Sri Lanka Dengue Cases 2026: Live Tracker and Latest Updates
Ryanair responds to Kumar Sangakkara’s allegation
TIN certificate mandatory for eight transactions from November 1
How Much Have Prices Changed? Explore Sri Lanka in 2016 vs 2026
Central Bank declares 27 companies and apps prohibited schemes
Namal Rajapaksa indicted on 24 charges over Airbus transaction
Pawtopia owner, suspect arrested over dog’s death in Negombo
Bay of Bengal depression set to become severe cyclonic storm by tomorrow
Kandyan dance welcomes Edelweiss passengers
Crowds flock to IRD as TIN requirement takes effect
Loading comments…