Sri Lanka’s Anglican bishops have warned that a narrowly framed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of senior judges risks undermining the rule of law and delaying long‑promised democratic reforms, even as the government insists the change is needed to clear a backlog of cases.
In a statement issued at the end of July, the Church of Ceylon – the Anglican Church in Sri Lanka, with dioceses in Colombo and Kurunegala – expressed “deep concern and disappointment” at the Cabinet’s decision to proceed with a constitutional amendment raising the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. The bishops said they had hoped the President and Cabinet would heed the “powerful arguments” advanced by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), the wider legal community and civil society, all warning that such a move would erode public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the courts.
The statement argues that the government’s justification – that extending judges’ tenure is necessary to speed up the disposal of a backlog of cases – is “seriously undermined” by the fact that a significant number of vacancies in the appellate courts remain unfilled “for reasons that have no rational or principled explanation.” “We can only conclude, therefore, that the real motivation for this amendment lacks bona fides,” the Church said.
The bishops place the controversy in the wider context of Sri Lanka’s stalled constitutional reform process. They note that the Church of Ceylon has “consistently advocated” for comprehensive changes, including the abolition of the executive presidency, an electoral system that promotes accountability and inclusion, the strengthening of independent institutions, the establishment of a robust Bill of Rights, and measures to address the grievances of minority communities.
These themes echo earlier interventions by religious leaders and analysts who have warned that promises of “system change” by the National People’s Power (NPP) government have yet to translate into a credible roadmap for constitutional reform. Commentators have observed that, nearly a year into the NPP administration, there is still no white paper, constitutional committee or draft text outlining how and when the executive presidency will be dismantled or other structural reforms enacted. A recent statement by the Centre for Policy Alternatives similarly urged the government to reaffirm its commitment to abolishing the presidency and to provide a clear, time‑bound plan for change.
Against this backdrop, the Church of Ceylon questions why the government has chosen to pursue a constitutional amendment on an issue – judges’ retirement ages – that “had not been raised in constitutional reform debates in recent years or during the last national election campaigns.” To focus on a measure that consolidates executive influence, while shelving broader democratizing reforms, the bishops say, “lacks moral legitimacy and constitutional propriety.”[10][1][6]
## Rule of law and judicial independence
The proposal would extend the retirement age of appellate court judges by two years, altering the current constitutional provisions under Article 107(5) which set the retirement age for Supreme Court judges at sixty‑five. The BASL has already warned that changing the rules for sitting judges at this juncture will be seen by the public as “a blatant attempt to interfere with the judiciary,” and has urged the government not to proceed.
Editorials in the Sri Lankan press have amplified these concerns, suggesting that the move places the NPP government “in an imbroglio” by aligning it against a broad coalition of legal professionals, civil society groups and religious leaders who view the amendment as politically motivated. One commentary notes that by seeking to increase judges’ retirement ages through a constitutional amendment, the government appears to be prioritising executive convenience “amidst protests from various reputable organisations” and risks damaging its reformist credentials. Social media discussion has been similarly divided, with some supporters questioning why a modest two‑year extension for judges is necessary at all, and others criticising what they perceive as an attempt to secure a more compliant bench.
The Church of Ceylon’s statement warns that tampering with judicial tenure for the stated purpose of clearing case backlogs, while leaving appointments unfilled, undermines “the Rule of Law and public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Judiciary.” The bishops call on the legislature to remember that its “primary function is to check the executive,” and urge the judiciary and its leadership to consider the “damage that this amendment will cause to its reputation and the Rule of Law in the country.”
The Anglican intervention comes amid mounting criticism of the amendment from other religious and civic actors. Senior Buddhist clerics from the Amarapura and Ramanna Nikayas have previously opposed constitutional changes that concentrate power in the presidency and weaken checks and balances, warning that such measures “reject the core values of democracy” and pave the way toward authoritarianism. More recently, leading monks (Mahanayake Theras) have spoken out against extending judges’ retirement ages from sixty‑five to sixty‑seven, arguing that the proposal threatens judicial independence and could be used to influence the composition of the courts for political ends.
Christian denominations have also been active in earlier debates over constitutional change. During the controversy over Sri Lanka’s twentieth amendment, several churches – including Methodist, Baptist, Salvation Army and the Church of South India – joined a common statement urging the government to prioritise the independence of key institutions and accountable governance. The Church of Ceylon’s latest statement thus fits into a broader pattern of religious communities urging structural reforms that strengthen democratic institutions rather than one‑off amendments that entrench executive power.
The Church of Ceylon concludes its statement with a direct appeal. It calls on the President and Cabinet to withdraw the proposed constitutional amendment extending judges’ retirement ages, on Parliament to rediscover its vocation as a check on the executive, and on the judiciary to be “mindful” of the reputational damage the measure would entail. At the same time, the bishops again urge the government to honour its pledge to initiate a “vitally important national process” of comprehensive constitutional reform, grounded in “widespread public consultation” and aimed at abolishing the executive presidency, strengthening independent commissions, and addressing minority grievances.