The NPP’s defence of the draft 22A; where's the moral high ground

By the Editorial Team · Sunday, August 30, 2026

Sri Lanka’s National Peoples' Power government has proposed a 22nd Amendment to extend the tenure of sitting judges, prompting criticism over the lack of broad consultation and concerns about judicial independence. The controversy highlights fears that the amendment could undermine the impartiality of the judiciary and repeat patterns of political interference seen in the country's past.

The National Peoples' Power (NPP) government in Sri Lanka is facing criticism over its proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which seeks to extend the tenure of sitting members of the judiciary. Concerns have been raised about the ad hoc nature of this constitutional amendment and its potential impact on judicial independence. Legal experts and commentators argue that changing judges' tenure without comprehensive reforms and broad consultations risks undermining the principle of an impartial and stable judiciary.

The amendment follows a history of politically motivated interference in Sri Lanka’s judicial system. Critics point to past actions by former Presidents and government officials, including the arbitrary retirement age set by JR Jayawardene, the intimidation of judges during his tenure, and the impeachment of judges during the Rajapaksa presidency. Despite this history, the current government’s approach has drawn scrutiny for repeating similar patterns, particularly given the lack of widespread consultation on the amendment’s content and implications.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, formally questioned the Sri Lankan government in early August 2026 about whether it had consulted the judiciary, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, legal professionals, civil society, or academic experts regarding the proposed amendment. As of that inquiry, no such consultations had been undertaken. Government officials appeared unaware or unprepared to address these concerns, further fueling doubts about the process.

Although President Anura Kumara Dissanayake later met with representatives of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, the encounter was reportedly marked by tension. The government responded officially to the UN Special Rapporteur’s queries, asserting that the amendment was part of a broader judicial reform initiative aimed at enhancing institutional continuity and access to justice. However, critics maintain that the government’s rationale remains vague, and the reference to a wider reform process in the Cabinet Memorandum of July 20, 2026, has been described as insufficient and lacking in substantive detail.

Supporters of the amendment emphasize that no international law prohibits altering judges’ tenure and argue that increasing the length of service can promote stability within the judiciary. They assert that the changes are intended to reduce delays in the legal system and strengthen access to justice, though specific mechanisms for achieving these goals have not been clearly articulated.

The debate has also included defensive responses from NPP loyalists who question why the UN Special Rapporteur has focused on Sri Lanka while allegedly overlooking violations by more powerful nations. This argument mirrors past criticisms of international human rights mechanisms as biased or selective. However, the Special Rapporteur’s office is widely regarded as independent, and Margaret Satterthwaite herself has publicly criticized human rights abuses committed by figures such as former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Observers warn that the NPP government risks repeating the errors of past administrations by enacting constitutional changes without sufficient safeguards or public engagement, thereby potentially jeopardizing the integrity and independence of Sri Lanka’s judiciary. The contentious amendment serves as a focal point in ongoing discussions about judicial reform, democratic governance, and the separation of powers in the country.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.