It is doubtful whether the discerning public expected anything worthwhile to come of Wednesday’s meeting between President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and a delegation from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL). There was no space for a meaningful discussion on the contentious issues concerning the proposed 22nd Amendment (22A) to the Constitution to extend the mandatory retirement ages of the judges of the Supreme Court (SC) and the Court of Appeal (CA). The government had already said in no uncertain terms that it would proceed with 22A, eliciting a strong response from the BASL.
The President’s Office has released a video of only what President Dissanayake said at Wednesday’s meeting. The BASL representatives have told the media they reiterated their position on 22A, urging President Dissanayake to abandon 22A. Their views are only too well known, and the public may have expected the President to counter them and argue his case cogently, presenting each point with clear evidence and logical progression.” But going by what the President’s Office has released to the media, instead of countering the arguments against 22A, the President only stood his ground, played the victim, in a manner of speaking, and even faulted the BASL for having issued a media statement in the run-up to the meeting. The President claimed that he had planned to attend the meeting with an open mind, but the BASL had issued the statement at issue. His claim would have sounded credible if he had invited the BASL to a meeting before gazetting 22A.
President Dissanayake claimed that the opponents of 22A had blown the issue out of proportion. When the BASL delegation denied having done so, the President shifted the blame to other critics. There is no reason for the BASL to exaggerate the issue, much less up the ante or resort to brinkmanship, for it is not engaged in a struggle to safeguard its own interests; it has taken a principled stand on a questionable government move that will undermine judicial independence, as is obvious.
President Dissanayake appealed to emotions by using a remark made by a lawyer that by undertaking to amend the Constitution he had taken the same risk as his predecessors who did so and fell from power. He said he was ready to take such risks. In what may be described as a bid to liken himself to a hero in pursuit of a just cause, the President went on to say that on his watch investigations into the Easter Sunday terror attacks had got underway, affecting the intelligence services, which were responsible for his own security. In answer to a reporter’s question on the President’s claim, a BASL official subsequently pointed out that risks involved in such moves as could undermine judicial independence were not worth taking.
Rejecting an allegation that the government was in a mighty hurry to extend the retirement ages of the judges of the superior courts before December 2026 for the benefit of one particular judge, President Dissanayake said 22A was not intended to benefit a single individual, and it was the interests of the judiciary that he had at heart. The discerning public cannot be expected to accept such an ipse dixit. Key Opposition figures have argued that the most effective way for the government to silence its critics who insist that it is determined to retain a particular judge in office is to delay 22A until he turns 65 and retires, and then initiate a consultative process with all stakeholders. For a government that is doing everything in its power to delay the Provincial Council elections, postponing a constitutional amendment that has drawn heavy criticism cannot be a problem unless it has an ulterior motive.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite’s criticism of 22A could not have come at a worse time for the government. In a letter to President Dissanayake, the UN official has endorsed the views of the opponents of 22A, especially those of influential international organisations, including the International Association of Judges, consisting of 93 national judges’ organisations across five continents, the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association, LAWASIA, and the French National Bar Council. Satterthwaite has urged the government to refrain from undermining the independence and credibility of the judiciary. There is no way government propagandists can vilify these international organisations as supporters of former Sri Lankan rulers fearing legal action. Equally, the BASL, especially its prominent members who attended Wednesday’s meeting and pointed out why 22A had to be abandoned, stood up to the previous governments and fearlessly defended the rights of protesters fighting for democracy.
The government is going to present 22A to Parliament early next week, according to media reports. One might argue that it is an exercise in futility to reason with a drunkard or a government intoxicated with power.
