Serious suspicions have arisen over whether the statement issued on August 27 by Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) President Rajeev Amarasuriya and Secretary Nalinda Silva was calculated to serve a hidden agenda regarding the proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These concerns come as the BASL itself filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the proposed amendment, joining several other petitions submitted against the bill. Analysts point out that the statement appears subtly designed to prevent Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and a bench led by him from presiding over the hearings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the official BASL release\u2014titled “Statement by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka on Judicial Independence, Responsible Scrutiny of the Judiciary, and the Administration of Justice”\u2014the association noted that it opposes the bill on principled grounds, claiming it raises severe concerns regarding judicial independence and public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, political and legal observers note that specific clauses within the release seem strategically targeted to create a perceived conflict of interest. The statement highlights that should the bill become law, the Chief Justice would be the first Supreme Court judge to benefit from the extended retirement age before his scheduled conclusion of office on December 1, 2026, fueling speculation that the amendment is being rushed for his benefit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Observers contend that embedding these assertions directly into the BASL’s public statement was intended precisely to challenge the Chief Justice’s involvement in hearing the petitions filed against the 22nd Amendment.<\/p>\n