THE 22ND AMENDMENT
STABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Dr. Jehan Perera weighs in on Sri Lanka’s political and constitutional battle
The 22nd Amendment has seen a bruising political and constitutional battle. The government’s determination to pass it is based on the argument that extending the tenure of judges by two years will provide greater continuity and constancy within the judiciary.
For a country that’s seeking political and economic stability, this is an important consideration. Businesses and investors need confidence that institutions will function predictably, long running disputes will eventually be resolved and the law will be applied consistently.
The government has also argued that judges needed sufficient time to complete cases already before them rather than having proceedings interrupted because a judge reached retirement age, was transferred or promoted.
Delays in the justice system have been a longstanding problem as complex cases can effectively return to the beginning when the composition of a bench changes. For victims who have awaited justice for years or decades, such delays can be deeply frustrating.
More effective functioning of the courts also matters to the government, particularly as investigations and prosecutions into corruption and other wrongdoing gather momentum.
The wider public mood has been an important factor in the government’s determination to proceed despite strong opposition.
Repeated opinion surveys have shown that people want corruption and serious criminality at the highest levels to be confronted. They want accountability to become real rather than remain an election promise. After years where powerful individuals appeared to enjoy impunity, there is a strong desire for the law to apply equally to everyone.
In the past, investigations into alleged wrongdoing by politicians frequently lost momentum because the political will was absent.
The situation appears different today. Week after week, cases involving alleged corruption and other wrongdoing have emerged – and this suggests that accountability is being pursued with seriousness.
However, this creates both an opportunity and a danger.
Accountability can strengthen public confidence in the law. But it can’t be allowed to become another form of political competition.
If punishment becomes the dominant language of politics, every change of government could produce another cycle in which yesterday’s prosecutions are portrayed as political persecution and today’s prosecutions are eventually avenged by tomorrow’s government.
The electoral verdict of 2024 brought an entirely new political leadership to power. But that transition needs to be managed carefully so that accountability strengthens institutions rather than deepens political polarisation and fear mongering.
For the business community, this distinction matters. Investors don’t merely require governments to be strong; they need institutions to be stronger than individual governments, and require confidence that contracts will be respected, disputes will be adjudicated fairly, and regulatory and judicial decisions won’t depend on political connections.
This is also why the manner in which the judiciary is treated matters.
Anyone whose actions or words undermine public confidence in the courts is harming the national interest. The judiciary is not the possession of the government, the opposition, the legal profession or civil society. It belongs to the country as a whole.
Institutions strengthened today have to survive tomorrow’s transfer of power. They have to command the confidence not only of those celebrating today’s victories but also of those who might eventually find themselves in opposition.
This makes the judges themselves central to the future of the 22nd Amendment. The strongest answer to concerns about this amendment eroding judicial independence will need to come from the judgments of the courts.
Therefore, the national challenge is larger than whether corruption cases succeed. It is whether accountability can restore faith in the law and finally weaken the culture of impunity that has protected powerful people for too long.
For businesses, investors and ordinary citizens alike, stability depends on that confidence.
So the 22nd Amendment needs to be judged not only by its stated purpose but also by what follows from it. It offers an opportunity to strengthen continuity in the justice system. But continuity can strengthen institutions only if it is accompanied by independence.
Eventually, the judges carry the greatest responsibility of all. Through their judgements, they can demonstrate that they’re beholden to no political authority. That will be the most convincing answer to the critics of the amendment, and the strongest assurance to the country that stability and accountability can advance together.
