22nd Constitutional Amendment should not be passed: Saliya Peiris

27-Aug-2026

.

The proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment should not be passed, former President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and President’s Counsel Saliya Peiris has said.

He made the remarks during an interview with a private television channel. 

Speaking further, he said the 22nd Amendment could pose a serious threat to judicial independence and democracy.

Since any constitutional amendment that undermines the independence of the judiciary would also affect the sovereignty of the people, obtaining a two-thirds majority in Parliament alone would not be sufficient and a referendum would also be necessary, he said.

However, he stressed that the main issue was not merely whether the amendment required a two-thirds majority or parliamentary approval followed by a referendum. “The amendment itself should not be enacted,” he said.

He said the courts would determine constitutional and legal issues, but beyond such legal considerations, there were certain matters concerning democracy, the people and judicial independence that should not be undertaken on ethical grounds.

He also rejected as completely erroneous the claim that increasing the retirement age of judges would help expedite the disposal of cases.

He pointed out that most cases involving the public are heard in lower courts, including Magistrate’s Courts and High Courts, and said increasing the retirement age of judges in the higher judiciary would not expedite cases in the lower courts.

“How would cases heard in the High Courts or Magistrate’s Courts be expedited by increasing the retirement age of judges in the higher judiciary? Are the High Court judges hearing these cases going to retire within the next two or three years?” he questioned.

Meanwhile, he rejected allegations that only a small group within the Bar Association had expressed opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment.

The Bar Association is the principal organisation representing lawyers, he said, adding that if the majority of lawyers opposed the amendment, they could attend the Association’s general meeting and express their opposition.

Members of the Bar Association do not act merely according to the views of its president, and lawyers would openly express their opposition if they disagreed with the amendment, he said.