Sri Lanka’s proposed 22nd Amendment is creating a fresh challenge for the government as it prepares for the next stage of negotiations with the European Union over the country’s GSP+ trade concessions.
At the centre of the controversy is a proposal to change the retirement ages of judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. The government has presented the measure as part of an effort to retain experienced judges and strengthen the country’s judicial system.
However, the proposal has drawn serious criticism from the legal community and international human rights experts, who have raised concerns about judicial independence.
Those concerns could have consequences beyond Sri Lanka’s constitutional debate.GSP+ provides Sri Lankan exporters with preferential access to the European market. Continued access depends not only on trade and economic considerations but also on Sri Lanka’s implementation of international commitments relating to human rights, labour rights, the environment and good governance.
This is where the proposed constitutional amendment becomes particularly sensitive.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has objected to changing the retirement arrangements of judges, particularly where the changes could affect judges already serving on the superior courts. The association has argued that the independence of judges depends on secure and predictable terms of office.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers has also raised concerns about the proposed changes. Questions have been raised about the impact of extending the tenure of serving judges and whether adequate safeguards exist to protect judicial independence.
The controversy comes at an uncomfortable time for the government.Sri Lanka is expected to engage with the European Union over the next GSP+ cycle while Brussels is already monitoring the country’s progress on human rights and governance commitments.
The European Commission has identified several areas where Sri Lanka still has work to do. These include concerns surrounding the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Online Safety Act and delays in submitting reports required under international human rights conventions.
The EU has also moved towards a stronger implementation-based approach to GSP+. Ratifying international conventions alone will no longer be sufficient. Countries seeking continued benefits will be expected to demonstrate that their commitments are being implemented in practice.
For Sri Lanka, that means the government must demonstrate that constitutional and legislative reforms are strengthening institutions rather than weakening them.
The economic stakes are substantial. GSP+ has provided important advantages to Sri Lankan exporters, particularly sectors such as apparel, rubber, food products and fisheries. Losing those benefits would increase costs for exporters competing in the European market.
The government has therefore established a Cabinet-level mechanism to coordinate preparations for the next GSP+ process. Several ministries are expected to work together to identify shortcomings and prepare an implementation plan covering Sri Lanka’s international obligations.
That effort could now face a difficult test. The question confronting the government is not simply whether judges should remain in office for longer. It is whether the manner in which the amendment is handled will convince Sri Lanka’s international partners that judicial independence and the rule of law remain firmly protected.
For a country seeking continued preferential access to one of its most important export markets, that distinction could prove critical.