> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.jaffnamonitor.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# ‘We Fought Then, We Will Fight Now’: Sumanthiran Defends Record on Judiciary
- URL: https://www.jaffnamonitor.com/featured/we-fought-then-we-will-fight-now-sumanthiran-defends-record-on-judiciary/
- Published: 2026-09-14T14:56:41.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-14T14:58:09.000Z
- Author: Our Reporter
- Tags: September 2026, Monitor Memo

**COLOMBO, Sri Lanka —** M.A. Sumanthiran, one of Sri Lanka's most prominent constitutional lawyers, has republished a speech he delivered in Parliament during the 2013 impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, answering critics who have questioned his opposition to a government plan to extend the retirement ages of senior judges.

Mr. Sumanthiran, a President's Counsel and general secretary of the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi, the main Tamil party in the island's north and east, posted the video on Facebook today, arguing that successive governments had sought to bend the courts to their purposes.

"The independence of the judiciary has once again come to the fore as a concern in our country," he wrote. "Governments in power have often attempted to interfere with this sacrosanct independence through actions by the other two arms of government, namely, the Executive and the Legislature."

The post comes during the sharpest confrontation yet between the legal profession and the government of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. A bill titled the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, gazetted on Aug. 7, would amend Article 107(5) to raise the retirement age of Supreme Court judges to 67 from 65, and of Court of Appeal judges to 65 from 63\. It drew 67 special determination petitions, the largest number ever filed against a constitutional amendment in Sri Lanka.

Mr. Sumanthiran, who appeared for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, has argued that judicial independence is an essential component of the sovereignty of the people, and that an amendment weakening it engages Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution.

Some critics, he said, had asked what he and his colleagues did when the judiciary was last under pressure.

"Perhaps they have forgotten the battles we fought tooth and nail in court and in Parliament to protect the independence of the judiciary even at that time," he wrote.

As evidence, he attached a recording of his Jan. 11, 2013 speech, delivered during the debate that ended in the vote to remove Ms. Bandaranayake. He said the video was of poor quality, but the audio was clear, despite repeated interruptions from government lawmakers.

He also used the post to make a political point.

"This also will remind us that some of those who shed crocodile tears today are the very persons who did the damage then," he wrote. He did not name anyone.

Ms. Bandaranayake was removed in January 2013 through an impeachment pushed through Parliament by the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The process continued despite court rulings questioning the legality of the parliamentary procedure, and it drew sustained domestic and international criticism. Parliament approved the motion on Jan. 11, 2013, and Mr. Rajapaksa removed her from office days later. After Mr. Rajapaksa lost the presidency in January 2015, the incoming government restored her to the post on the ground that her removal had been legally flawed. She retired the following day.

The current dispute has produced its own procedural grievances. The petitions were heard on Sept. 1 and 2 by a five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena. The Bar Association had sought the chief justice's recusal and asked that the case be heard by all 17 sitting Supreme Court judges. Both motions were dismissed on Sept. 1\. Petitioners had argued that the chief justice would be the first Supreme Court judge to benefit from the amendment. The Bar Association later told the court it would not file post-hearing written submissions, citing the bench's refusal to allow petitioners an oral right of reply after the state's submissions on Sept. 2.

Most other petitioners followed. Steven Thiru, president of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, who observed the proceedings, said he was told no reasons were given for dismissing the two motions beyond the court's assertion that it had jurisdiction.

The government rejects the challenge's premise. Mr. Dissanayake has said he intends to proceed with the amendment despite objections from the Bar Association, the Judicial Service Association and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, and his government argues that keeping judges on the bench longer is necessary to clear a backlog of more than 1.1 million pending cases. In a six-page response sent to the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Aug. 21, the government said the changes were meant to reduce delays, improve access to justice and retain judicial expertise, and were not intended to extend the tenure of any particular judge. That reply followed a communication from Margaret Satterthwaite, the U.N. special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, who warned that applying the changes to sitting judges raised concerns about judicial independence and the separation of powers.

"Irrespective of all that, our commitment to the independence of the judiciary will continue since that is a foundational principle on which this country's Constitution stands," Mr. Sumanthiran wrote.

He closed the post with a restatement: "I repeat: we will fight for the independence of the judiciary whenever it comes under attack by whichever arm of government."