Opposition parties write to President seeking referendum
11-Aug-2026.
The Joint Opposition has stated that it is essential to hold a referendum under the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Constitution to ascertain the will of the people regarding the fundamental changes expected through the proposed amendments to Article 107(5) of the Constitution.
The Joint Opposition made this request in a letter addressed to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake regarding the Government’s decision to extend the retirement age of judges.
The letter further stated:
“Under Article 3 of the Constitution, sovereignty of the Republic of Sri Lanka is vested in the people and is inalienable. Article 4(c) further provides that the judicial power of the people shall be exercised through courts and institutions established or recognised by the Constitution.
“An amendment or repeal of Article 3 requires, in addition to a two-thirds majority in Parliament, approval by the people at a referendum in terms of Article 83. Since Articles 3 and 4 are inseparably interconnected, the Supreme Court has already held that Article 4 is entitled to the same protection.
“As pointed out in the judgment in A.V.N. Perera v. Attorney-General (SC (SD) No. 30/2022), without an independent judiciary protected from interference by the Executive and Legislature, there would be little purpose in constitutional recognition of the rights of the people or judicial power.
“Furthermore, in its determination on the constitutionality of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill of 2022, the Supreme Court clearly affirmed that any constitutional amendment affecting the tenure or retirement age of judges, whether directly or indirectly affecting judges currently in office, would undermine judicial independence and violate Article 3, thereby requiring a referendum.
“Unlike the experience of other countries where such changes were introduced only after extensive consultations with bodies such as the Bar Association, intellectuals and civil society, the rushed manner in which these measures are being pursued here, without any dialogue or consultation, has given rise to serious doubts and concerns. This is contrary to the prerequisites of good governance and meaningful dialogue emphasised by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission).
“Under the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) and international standards on judicial independence, even where actual bias is not established, a reasonable apprehension of bias may be sufficient to invalidate a judgment. Reasonable questions therefore arise regarding the manner in which matters concerning senior members of the judiciary, who could potentially benefit from the alleged measure, are being handled.
“Therefore, since power cannot be taken away from the people in violation of popular sovereignty, we request that the Cabinet be directed, in terms of Article 85(1) of the Constitution, to certify that the proposed Bill seeking to amend Article 107(5) is intended to be submitted to the people at a referendum.”
