Category: Daily Financial Times

The Cabinet of Ministers earlier this week approved a proposal to establish the Gem and Jewellery Research and Training Institute as the Research and Training Division of the National Gem and Jewellery Authority (NGJA), paving the way for a major institutional reform aimed at strengthening the country’s gem and jewellery sector.

The proposal, submitted by Industry and Entrepreneurship Development Minister Sunil Handunneththi, also authorises the necessary legal steps under the provisions of the National Gem and Jewellery Authority Act, No. 50 of 1993 to formalise the integration.

The move will proceed with the legal and administrative measures necessary to integrate the Gem and Jewellery Research and Training Institute into the NGJA as its dedicated Research and Training Division, with the objective of improving institutional efficiency, eliminating duplication, and ensuring a more coordinated approach to the development of the gem and jewellery industry.

The NGJA was established under the National Gem and Jewellery Authority Act, No. 50 of 1993, while the Gem and Jewellery Research and Training Institute was set up in 1995 to conduct research and provide training for the industry in accordance with the Act.

Although both institutions have played important roles in the development of the gem and jewellery industry, the Government noted that their parallel operations have resulted in duplication of resources and policy inconsistencies due to the absence of a unified operational framework.

To address these issues, the Cabinet granted policy approval on 17 March 2025 to merge the two institutions, based on recommendations made by the committee of officials appointed to review non-commercial State institutions.

‘The committee operates under the chairmanship of the Secretary to the Prime Minister,’ Cabinet Spokesman and Minister Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa said at the weekly post-Cabinet meeting media briefing on Tuesday.

Following the policy decision, the Industry and Entrepreneurship Development Ministry Secretary appointed an official committee to recommend the structural reforms required to implement the merger.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has sought a meeting with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake after holding discussions with Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara on the Government’s proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges.

Speaking to the media yesterday, BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya said the Association explained why it believed the proposed amendment should not proceed at this stage.

He said the BASL submitted to the Justice Minister the report unanimously adopted at its Special General Meeting earlier in the day, setting out the Association’s position on the proposed amendment and incorporating recommendations from a comprehensive study conducted in 2023.

Amarasuriya said the BASL also requested a meeting with the President to discuss the proposal, adding that the Justice Minister had agreed to convey the request.

According to Amarasuriya, the Minister said he would review the BASL’s submissions before briefing the President and relevant officials and responding to the Association.

Amarasuriya said the BASL hoped its report would receive careful consideration and lead to further expert discussions on the proposed amendment.

He also clarified that the Association had neither discussed nor taken any decision on protests or disrupting court proceedings following its Special General Meeting.

Sri Lanka’s tourism industry crossed the 1.3 million visitor milestone during the first 26 days of July, with strong demand from India helping the sector regain momentum and narrowly surpass last year’s arrivals pace despite lingering regional uncertainties.

Provisional data released by the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority (SLTDA) showed that 167,401 tourists arrived in the country during the first 26 days of July, marking a marginal 0.11% increase from the 167,218 visitors registered during the corresponding period in 2025.

India retained its position as Sri Lanka’s largest source market, contributing 38,785 visitors during the period, accounting for 23% of total arrivals. The UK ranked second with 18,419 tourists (11%), followed by the Netherlands with 10,540 visitors (6%), China with 10,238 arrivals (6%), and Australia with 8,024 tourists (5%).

Industry sources attributed part of the growth to the Government’s free-visa scheme, which has helped attract visitors from non-traditional source markets while supporting broader tourism demand.

The narrowing gap with last year’s performance has been driven largely by robust demand from India, underpinned by extensive direct air connectivity provided by national carrier SriLankan Airlines and Indian low-cost carrier IndiGo, which have continued to expand operations between the two countries.

The July performance also reflected a strong rebound from June, when tourist arrivals totalled 124,551, marking the lowest footfall for 2026. During the first 26 days of July, Sri Lanka welcomed an average of 6,439 visitors per day, underscoring the seasonal strength of the month, which typically benefits from school holidays in key source markets and the country’s calendar of cultural and religious events.

The latest inflows lifted cumulative tourist arrivals for 2026 beyond the 1.3 million mark. However, year-to-date (YTD) arrivals remained around 2% below the corresponding period last year, highlighting the gradual nature of the recovery.

On a cumulative basis, India continued to dominate all source markets with 332,468 visitors, representing 25% of total arrivals so far this year. The UK remained the second-largest market with 126,986 visitors (10%), while China ranked third with 86,409 arrivals, accounting for 7% of the total.

While international air connectivity has improved significantly following disruptions earlier this year, lingering regional uncertainty continues to weigh on long-haul travel demand. Against this backdrop, the resilience of the Indian market has become increasingly critical in sustaining Sri Lanka’s tourism recovery and supporting the industry’s growth trajectory through the remainder of 2026.

West Indies all-rounder Justin Greaves made Test cricket history earlier this week by becoming the first bowler in the recorded era to take wickets in five consecutive maiden overs during the opening Test against Pakistan in Tarouba.

The 32-year-old returned figures of 5-27 on the third day, producing a spell that helped swing the World Test Championship contest in the hosts’ favour.

Greaves surpassed the previous record of four consecutive wicket maidens, set by former England fast bowler Stuart Broad against South Africa in Johannesburg in 2016.

Playing in his 17th Test, the Barbadian claimed his maiden five-wicket haul as Pakistan were bowled out for 282 in reply to West Indies’ first-innings total of 311.

‘When I came on, Captain Roston Chase just said ‘continue to be disciplined in what you are doing’ and to see if I can get some wickets for the team,’ Greaves said.

‘The ball nipped around and I got some reward. Anytime I get the ball in hand the team looks to me to be that solid player for them [and] try to dig us out of situations.

‘To get five wickets for the first time in Test cricket, I’m really happy, but there’s still a lot of work to do in the game.’

SDB bank has strengthened its business banking footprint with the opening of its new Business Centre at 167, Union Place, Colombo 02, a strategic move aimed at expanding its presence within one of Colombo’s most prominent commercial districts. The relocation reflects the Bank’s continued focus on delivering specialised financial solutions, strengthening relationships with corporate clients, and providing greater accessibility to businesses, professionals and high-net-worth customers.

Located in the heart of Colombo’s business hub, the new SDB bank Business Centre has been established to bring the Bank closer to corporate decision-makers, mid-sized and large enterprises, institutional clients and mass affluent individuals. As a purpose-driven organisation, SDB bank envisions the Business Centre as a platform to connect these stakeholders more meaningfully with Sri Lanka’s national development by channelling their investments towards community upliftment, entrepreneurship development and the strengthening of the country’s SME sector. The enhanced location is also expected to support deeper engagement with Sri Lanka’s business community while creating new opportunities to expand the Bank’s corporate and business banking portfolio.

The Business Centre offers a comprehensive suite of tailored banking solutions designed to meet the evolving needs of businesses. These include customised lending and deposit facilities, dedicated relationship management, short-term investment and money market solutions, and exclusive digital banking packages that help businesses manage their financial operations more efficiently. Customers will also benefit from personalised advisory services delivered by experienced banking professionals who understand the unique requirements of each business.

Beyond strengthening corporate banking relationships, the new location enables SDB bank to better serve professionals, mass-affluent customer segments and the growing business community within the surrounding commercial district. The Bank also plans to further enhance customer engagement through dedicated business development initiatives, digital banking adoption and integrated financial solutions that support long-term business growth.

Commenting on the opening, SDB bank Deputy Chief Executive Officer Manoj Akmeemana, said, ‘The opening of the SDB Business Centre at Union Place represents an important step in strengthening our business banking proposition and bringing our expertise closer to Sri Lanka’s corporate community. By combining personalised relationship management, tailored financial solutions and advanced digital capabilities, we are well positioned to support businesses of every scale as they pursue sustainable growth while building long-term banking partnerships founded on trust, accessibility and value. Let this Business Centre stand as a symbol of our ambition, our commitment to excellence and our confidence in the future.’

The opening of the SDB Business Centre reinforces the Bank’s commitment to delivering customer-centric banking solutions while supporting the evolving financial needs of Sri Lanka’s corporate and business sector.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) yesterday unanimously adopted a special resolution opposing the Government’s proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges.

The BASL called on the President, Government, and Parliament not to proceed with the legislation unless it is demonstrably necessary, transparently developed, widely consulted upon, and consistent with Sri Lanka’s constitutional traditions and international obligations relating to judicial independence.

The resolution was adopted at what the BASL described as its largest-ever Special General Meeting of members.

The resolution states that the Association ‘unequivocally opposes’ the proposed constitutional amendment in its present form and says the proposal should not proceed in the absence of a demonstrated institutional necessity, a transparent and evidence-based justification, meaningful consultation with all relevant stakeholders, and a comprehensive assessment of its constitutional implications.

The BASL also called on the Government to immediately prioritise filling existing vacancies in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal through the constitutional appointment process instead of altering the tenure of serving judges.

It further urged the Government to prioritise implementing recommendations contained in the Justice Sector Assessment and Strategic Action Plan, including reforms to reduce delays, strengthen institutional capacity, improve judicial administration, modernise court infrastructure and technology, and enhance access to justice.

In setting out the basis for the resolution, the BASL said no compelling necessity, objective evidence, or institutional justification had been publicly demonstrated to warrant the proposed amendment. It also said the proposal had been advanced without a comprehensive consultative process involving the Judiciary, the Bar, academia, civil society, or other relevant stakeholders.

The Association said the justice system’s more pressing challenges include judicial vacancies, case delays, inadequate judicial resources, insufficient technological modernisation, procedural inefficiencies, and the need for comprehensive institutional reform.

It added that comparative constitutional practice shows that reviews of judicial retirement ages generally follow careful consultation and ordinarily operate prospectively to avoid any perception that constitutional amendments are directed at identifiable serving judges.

The resolution also cites international standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, the Latimer House Principles, the Commonwealth Charter, the Universal Charter of the Judge, and the International Bar Association Minimum Standards of Judicial Independence, as recognising judicial independence and security of tenure as fundamental safeguards of the rule of law.

The BASL further noted that, because the Supreme Court is constitutionally empowered to hear challenges to Bills, the proposed amendment could place sitting Supreme Court judges in an ’embarrassing position of Conflict of Interest’ if called upon to determine legislation affecting their own tenure.

The resolution reaffirms the BASL’s commitment to defending the independence of the Judiciary, the separation of powers, the rule of law, constitutional governance, and the integrity of Sri Lanka’s justice system. It also authorises the President, Executive Committee, and officers of the Association to take all lawful and appropriate steps, nationally and internationally, to safeguard judicial independence and oppose any constitutional measure that undermines, or appears to undermine, those principles.

President Rajeev Amarasuriya later said the Government had proceeded without consulting the legal profession.

He said the proposed amendment had been brought before the Cabinet without prior engagement with the BASL, despite its implications for the judiciary and the legal profession, and that 3,000 to 4,000 lawyers participated in the Special General Meeting, both in person and virtually.

Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning Dr. Anil Jayantha Fernando said Sri Lanka’s latest S and P Global Ratings assessment reflects growing investor confidence and continued economic stability, highlighting an upgrade in the country’s Transfer and Convertibility (T and C) Assessment from ‘CCC+’ to ‘B-‘.

Notwithstanding the scheduled discussion between the BASL and the Justice Minister, the Cabinet decided to forge ahead with the controversial term extension for the higher judiciary. NPP Exco member Lal Wijenaike, senior leftist and lawyer, says the Exco did not approve the move-but that he had been told to shut up.

Earlier, the Cabinet decided that Provincial Council election can be held only after a new Election law, and declined to commit to a time-frame.

Connect the dots and one can see where things are headed-towards the dismantling of democracy and its substitution by political despotism. The Opposition should not be naive enough to think that elections in 2029 are a certainty. So, how can it resist and roll back the arrogant dictatorial trend?

Democracy in Asia

Fortunately, we are living in a moment of democratic people’s power in South Asia: Sri Lanka 2022, Bangladesh 2024, and Nepal 2025.

We must unequivocally applaud the ‘flash uprising’ of the student youth of India, the world’s most populous democracy-an uprising led by the refreshingly unconventional Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). It showed that even with a weakened parliamentary Opposition, the country’s educated youth succeeded in pushing back the dominant Modi dispensation on a single specific issue impacting the present and future prospects of vast numbers. India’s youth uprising has made more meaningful the republican character of India’s democracy and dented the overlordship of the Modi-BJP-RSS bloc.

As in Europe in May 1968, the student movements in each country must learn from the experiences of the others. Sharing lessons and building South Asian networks must not be limited in a sectarian spirit to ‘fraternal’ youth movements of left parties, but must embrace all democratic, anti-authoritarian student, youth and people’s movements.

Just as liberal democrats and radical democrats (e.g., Tom Paine) rebelled against ‘tyranny’, Marx, Engels and Lenin (‘Two Tactics’-1905) prioritised the ‘general democratic’ struggle against ‘political absolutism’ as the primary goal. It would be a strange ‘Third Worldist’ or Asian radical conclave or perspective which failed to:

Denounce the brutal military junta of Myanmar, the oldest military dictatorship in Asia, the Global South and the world.

Solidarise with the Myanmar youth and students fighting for democracy-a struggle which justifiably became guerrilla resistance after lethal repression of peaceful protest.

Unprecedented convergence

July 23rd was billed as a decisive test for Sajith Premadasa as Opposition leader. Namal Rajapaksa had taken the initiative of writing to Sajith urging him to take up the leadership of resistance to the AKD Government’s tampering with the judiciary. Sajith convened a gathering of the Opposition to address the issue.

Sajith Premadasa passed the test with flying colours, because I cannot recall a more widely attended meeting of leaders of Ceylonese/Sri Lankan Opposition parties on any issue whatsoever. Almost everyone imaginable was there, cutting across all barriers. It was the most inclusive Opposition ingathering on the record.

While there were 43 attendees in all, not all were party leaders, but over half were. The list of leading personalities included: Sajith Premadasa, Ranil Wickremesinghe, Dinesh Gunawardena, Namal Rajapaksa, Jeevan Thondaman, Nimal Siripala, Tiran Alles, Dilith Jayaweera, Prof. GL Peiris, Wimal Weerawansa, Udaya Gammanpila, Dayasiri Jayasekara, Patali Champika Ranawake, Asanka Navaratne, Maithri Gunarathna, Rauff Hakeem, Ravi Karunanayaka, Mano Ganeshan, Gajendran Ponnambalam, Rishard Bathiudeen, P Digambaram, and V Radhakrishnan.

The full-spectrum Opposition gathering was a political defeat for the Government which had benefited from the fissured Opposition space. While such an ingathering may not be reassembled for some time though it should, and the collective Opposition may not take the convergence to the next level as it should, it is no less true that the taboos have been overcome momentarily, and the ice has been broken.

For the first time in a long time, we are able to talk of ‘The Opposition’, and not just this or that party or grouping.

The Opposition parties may return to their respective silos, but they’ve come together once, and can do so again, for a more sustained time and extended, ambitious effort. On balance, this is more likely than not, given the polarising policies and practices of the Government.

Grassroots Opposition unity

The Multi-Purpose Cooperative Society (MPCS) elections have witnessed a spontaneous drawing together of the anti-Government masses, manifested in the domino-like defeats of the JVP-NPP at the hands of combined Opposition blocs led by the SJB.

Will the national-level leaders learn from the masses, i.e., from their own grassroots supporters, and form a collective or coordinated political leadership, thereby securing national elections on schedule and eliminating the chances of an electoral victory by the incumbent administration?

We’d be lucky if the Opposition streamlines itself into a bipolar formation rather than the current multipolar arrangement and clusters around Sajith Premadasa and Namal Rajapaksa as candidates. I’m not idealistic enough to assume that the two will arrive at an equation which presents a combined Opposition slate. Any power-sharing will have to be post-election.

Existential threat to Opposition

The Opposition imperatively needs to realise what the 17-MP UNP Opposition figured in 1970-1977. A ruling alliance with a 2/3rds majority in parliament and acting like a steamroller, leaves only one option for the parliamentary Opposition-supplement parliamentary politics with the extra-parliamentary path of peaceful mass protest. This strategic realisation expressed itself in the famous ‘satyagraha’ campaigns under JR-Premadasa leadership.

Today’s Opposition must use the Parliament to the maximum as a platform but begin to shift the centre of gravity of activity outside of Parliament. ‘Swarm tactics’ by all Opposition currents would multiply chances of success. The faces around the table at the Opposition Leader’s Office on 23 July should be seen together on public platforms and picket-lines. The Opposition must learn to ‘walk the talk’ i.e., walk on the streets, the talk around the table. It must turn its shared precepts into united political practice.

However, as India has shown there is no viable politics for any Opposition that does not foreground the social dimension-social impacts, social movements, social issues. Will the Opposition come together on the material issues of the people, such the growing crisis of the peasant/agrarian sector, issues of the fisherfolk, and the student youth? Will the Opposition hit the streets with these social forces?

Opposition party leaders are primarily preoccupied with becoming the ‘common Presidential Candidate’ and winning a Presidential Election. Opposition parties are preoccupied with sharing out future ministerial posts and keeping out other parties.

Some are expecting JVP-NPP ‘lawfare’ to incarcerate Namal Rajapaksa and take him off the board as a contender, enabling them to fill the space. It will be too late when they figure that the JVP-NPP’s target list includes all of them and that its endgame is the long-term postponement of elections and deep entrenchment in power.

Before the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections of 2029 comes the struggle to ensure that those elections are held on schedule, because in its political genes, the JVP is predisposed towards one-party tyranny. This requires that Opposition leaders and parties should be primarily preoccupied with:

The long-term symbolic value of Sajith Premadasa’s successful rallying almost the whole Opposition around a table at the Opposition Leader’s office on 23 July, will be seen when in face of the tightening economic crisis, AKD and the JVP-NPP manifest their long-standing totalitarian reflexes and strive to kick the can of national elections down the road-probably using the PC polls ‘blockade’ as template.

Having come together once, the Opposition leaders will know they have to come together again, and this time, stay together until they secure an election on schedule. If they don’t, they will have to manage without elections for as long as the JVP-NPP pleases-as with PC elections. The mainstream Opposition will be as disempowered as the minority parties representing the North and East are.

Universal strategy, two tactics

The Opposition needs to grasp a universal principle of serious politics practised by figures as diverse as Lenin and Churchill, Mao and Roosevelt, Ho Chi Minh and De Gaulle. That principle is: draw lines of demarcation of fundamental, foundational issues of program and ideology, but transcend those lines and unite on matters of shared principle and common interests against existential threats.

The principle of the United Front cuts across ideological enmities and national/international distinctions. Churchill set aside his hostility towards Stalin’s communism and stridently advocated a broad alliance against Hitler’s fascism, resuming the anti-communist cause only after World War II was won.

Presidents George HW Bush (Bush Sr.), Bill Clinton and Barack Obama held that the USA should act multilaterally whenever it can, and unilaterally only when it must.

Lenin, who correctly insisted during WW I on splitting with the old socialist parties and forming an international movement of intransigent communist parties (1919), no less correctly changed gear and called for a United Front of workers’ parties (1921), against the rise of the violent European counterrevolution which was turning fascist.

Memorably, Trotsky said he would be willing to enter a united front even ‘with the Devil’s grandmother’ against Nazi fascism.

Most famously and successfully, the Communist International under Stalin and Dimitrov launched the strategy of the Popular Front consisting of left and bourgeois-democratic parties. Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh adapted it to the East in a broadened version which included ‘national’ capitalists. Mao termed the ‘United Front’ one of the ‘Three Magic Wands of the Revolution’ (the others being the Party and the Army).

The most inclusive and pluralist convergence of Opposition leaders ever in Sri Lankan politics didn’t go to the next level of becoming a July 23rd Movement or ‘Standing Conference’. The historic convergence should be formalised as a quarterly conference of the whole Opposition.

To operationalise the universal doctrine of political strategy sketched above, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and all other Opposition party leaders must apply ‘two tactics’ in alternation but in combination:

(I) Push ahead as far and fast as possible as a single party or with like-minded partners whenever it can, while uniting with all Opposition parties when it must.

(II) Converge as many parties as possible in action on as many issues as possible, i.e., encirclement through ‘swarm tactics’, while each party goes its own way or acts together with like-minded parties only when common ground cannot be found among all or most Opposition parties.

Sajith’s suitability

July 23rd hopefully put paid to gossip about possible challenges to Sajith Premadasa as SJB leader and (perhaps SJB-UNP) Presidential Candidate. As a realist who has observed national politics since 1964, I don’t see any candidates in the Opposition who can even make it into double-digits, other than Sajith Premadasa and Namal Rajapaksa.

Whether Sajith will win in 2029 depends on the challenges that face the citizens and the country at the time and whether his mature, balanced, centrist progressivism are perceived as the best to answer, or whether Namal Rajapaksa’s youthful, combative spirit is perceived as the requirement.

The limitations of the main Opposition party-the SJB-certainly weakens the Opposition and democracy as a whole, but it is important to grasp that:

(a) There’s no Opposition party anywhere as big as the SJB.

(b) The main limitation of the SJB is not its founder-leader Sajith Premadasa who as Presidential Candidate consistently scores higher than the supposed sibling parties, the SJB and UNP.

The SJB’s problem stems from what it stubbornly chose to remain as, when there was another, much better identification available as option-that of the last popularly elected UNP President’s policies. Instead of returning to and following a success story, the SJB chose to be the successor party or identical twin of the losing UNP of Ranil Wickremesinghe, inheriting its ‘genetic’ electoral defects.

This is evidenced by the SJB’s stagnation which continues that of the UNP under Ranil who inherited the island’s largest single party with a vote base of 40%, and reduced it to a party with a vote ceiling of 20%. Thus:

While holding the Prime Ministership and Cabinet portfolios under Yahapalanaya, the UNP fell to 20% in February 2018.

Its clone the SJB took over that 20% in August 2020.

Ranil running as incumbent (albeit appointed) President in 2024 with some SLPP (‘Gas Cylinder’) support, scored 20%.

The SJB reappropriated that 20% in November 2024.

Meanwhile Sajith Premadasa scored 42% in November 2019 and 32% in September 2024-which can’t be entirely attributed to the minorities, because the SJB had some of that support in the mix at the Parliamentary Elections too. It is Sajith’s heritage of Premadasa populism that gets him a bigger vote nationally than the SJB, UNP, or Ranil.

The SJB’s main liability is its right-wing economic ideologues who fail to grasp that there is no national ‘market share’ beyond 20% for their Wickremesinghe-era UNP neoliberal economics.

The ‘magic formula’ of uniting the SJB and UNP will not work electorally because it is the same 20% that either or both will get, so long as they adopt the same de-Premadasaised economic policy of three decades of neoliberal electoral failure and defeat 1994-2024.

The NPP’s 2024 vote showed what formula works electorally-a progressive, centre-left populism-which AKD-JVP-NPP pivoted away from sharply to the right once elected, as did Syriza’s Alexis Tsipras after winning Greece’s referendum against the EU debt-restructuring package.

The SJB’s right-wing ideologues Dr Harsha de Silva and Eran Wickremaratne bitterly resisted every effort by Sajith to broaden the scope of the SJB’s appeal by an alliance with the Dullas-GL group of 13 progressive dissidents from the Pohottuwa (who also had considerable experience of electoral success and working with elected presidents). If that partnership lasted, the SJB would have had a bridge to the disillusioned SLFP-SLPP voters and won in 2024. With Harsha-Eran building walls not bridges against that partnership, those voters floated to the NPP instead. Only Dr. Charitha Herath remains.

Sajith Premadasa had a great public welcome and fired up oratorically in Mihintale this week. (https://youtu.be/UcmY–cvySc?si=vLLi15pdHGcN0gGi)

I’d like to see Dr. Harsha de Silva campaign in the rural ‘heartland’ advocating integration with Tamil Nadu as he does in Colombo.

For the SJB and UNP, Sajith Premadasa is the only game in town, unless they want to remain stagnant at a shared 20%.

The Government has announced its intention to introduce a Bill to amend the Constitution to extend the retiring age of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by two years to 67 and 65 years respectively. While it would be quite legitimate to commence a conversation on the retiring age of Judges, the proper stage to do so is when a new Constitution is being drafted.

An ad hoc mid-stream peremptory announcement that it would extend judicial tenure, will inevitably be viewed as an attempt by the Government to retain the services of one or more Judges whose retirement is due shortly. Such a perception will cause irreparable harm to the credibility of the judiciary.

No valid reason to change retiring age

There appears to be no immediate justification to increase the constitutionally mandated retiring age of 65 years of Judges of the Supreme Court. It is the same in many Asian countries – India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Singapore, and 66 years in Malaysia.

It makes little sense to argue that in the United Kingdom, where until recently the House of Lords was its highest court, Judges serve until the age of 75; or that in the United States they hold office for life. In many of the States in the US, judges are elected.

Even the appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court is a political exercise, where the President recommends and the Senate confirms or rejects by a majority vote. In several South and Central American countries, the Chief Justice is elected by the Judges themselves for a specified rotating period.

As elsewhere, our system is the result of our own constitutional evolution, and it would be foolish to attempt to replicate others’.

No support from serving Judges

It has been reported that the Judicial Officers Association has strenuously objected to any increase in their retiring age of 60.

After over 25 or 30 years of wandering from one judicial division to another, they probably wish to settle down and enjoy family life. It is not known whether the Judges of the Supreme Court had requested an extension of their tenure.

It seems unlikely that they had, because on retirement the extremely lucrative world of arbitration lies at their feet, in addition to receiving 90% of their salary in the form of a monthly pension.

There is now a further incentive provided by a recent judgment of the Supreme Court itself that if a retiring Judge chooses to draw a commuted pension on retirement; i.e., an advance payment of a sum equivalent to, say, 50% of the monthly pension due to him in the first 24 months following retirement, that advance payment cannot thereafter be recovered by the Government from his monthly pension because, according to that judgment, Article 108 of the Constitution states that the pension entitlement of a Supreme Court Judge shall not be reduced.

That is, after taking a substantial portion of his future pension in advance, the State is nevertheless required to pay him the full pension thereafter; a loan which a retiring Judge is not required to repay; a privilege not accorded to judges of lesser rank or other members of the public service.

Judicial tenure to be determined in new Constitution

It is a fundamental tenet of judicial independence that a judge of the highest court should have a constitutionally guaranteed tenure. It could be for life, until a mandatory retirement age, or the expiry of a fixed term of office. That is a guarantee of judicial independence.

The retirement age of Judges of the Supreme Court has always been determined at the stage of drafting a new Constitution. The 1947 Constitution of Ceylon specified that the retirement age of Judges of the Supreme Court shall be 62 years, but that the Governor-General ‘may permit a Judge who has reached the age of 62 years to continue in office for a period not exceeding 12 months’.

Neither Sir Ivor Jennings who prepared the Ministers’ Draft, nor B.P. Peiris, the draftsman of the 1947 Constitution, has taken responsibility for that extension provision. It is, therefore, likely that it was inserted by the British Government, having regard to the interests of members of the Colonial Judicial Service who were serving on the Supreme Court at the time when that Constitution came into force.

When the 1972 Constitution was being drafted, it was decided to omit that discretionary power of the Government to grant selective extensions of service to judges of their choice, although I am not aware of any such extension having ever been granted. Instead, the retirement age of Judges of the Supreme Court was fixed at 63 years.

The 1978 Constitution abolished the Supreme Court, replaced it with a new Supreme Court and a Court of Appeal, and from what Dr. Colvin R. de Silva has described as ‘the witches’ cauldron’, President Jayewardene picked out eleven Judges, distributed them to the two appellate courts, without regard to seniority, experience or age, excluded eight Judges, and then increased the retirement age of the chosen ones to 65 years and 63 years respectively. That is the position today.

Freezing the judicial sector

One consequence of the Government’s proposed action is to freeze the judicial sector and thereby prevent any upward movement for judges of lower courts.

Moreover, four vacancies in the Supreme Court and four vacancies in the Court of Appeal, have not been filled for several months. In the past, whenever a vacancy occurred, it was the invariable practice to fill that vacancy on the next day. In the Ministry of Justice, where I served for seven years, we would determine well in advance who would fill a vacancy immediately it occurs. The new Judge will be sworn in on the day following the retirement of his predecessor.

The legal profession has never been as large in number as it is today. Consequently, the field of selection of new judges is enormous. To extend the tenure of serving judges is not only to deny the legitimate expectation of many for promotion in service, but also to frustrate the aspirations of hundreds of young lawyers who seek a career in judicial service.

Litigation expedited by reforming procedure

The Government has expressed a bizarre argument that extending the tenure of serving judges is necessary to reduce the enormous backlog of cases, many of which had been instituted more than 25 or 30 years ago. That is a spurious argument, similar to that which I encountered over 50 years ago before we introduced the Administration of Justice Laws of 1973 and 1975.

Litigation is not expedited by establishing more courts and appointing more judges. Litigation is expedited by reforming the procedure.

Reference to a Conciliation Board before proceeding to a court; evidence through affidavits instead of by examination-in-chief; a pre-trial conference; hearings from day-to-day with no postponements except in the event of a family bereavement, written submissions in the appellate courts and oral arguments limited to 30 minutes (as is the procedure in the United States Supreme Court), and the listing of appeals in the order in which they had been filed, were some of the procedural reforms which we introduced to expedite civil litigation.

Similarly, the abolition of non-summary proceedings was just one of many procedural reforms in criminal cases.

Research conducted by Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam revealed that in three years, 53% of civil disputes had been resolved in Conciliation Boards, without the appearance of lawyers, and therefore did not reach the courts.

Discriminatory treatment of two Chief Justices

During both the presidential and general elections, the NPP promised to abolish the Executive Presidency and to restore Parliamentary Government under a new electoral system. That promise remains unfulfilled.

On the other hand, if it was intended to extend the tenure of Judges of the appellate courts, why was a Bill not introduced for that purpose before eight Judges retired a few months ago?

If the intention was to extend the tenure of the Chief Justice, why was that benefit not extended to Chief Justice Murdu Fernando who was appointed by, and retired during, this Government?

A constitutional amendment now would lead one irresistibly to the conclusion that what the Government seeks is to ensure that the present Chief Justice continues in office for two more years following the constitutionally mandated date of his retirement.

In my view, that would be a blatant interference with the administration of justice in this country. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, endorsed by the UN General Assembly, adopted by judiciaries on all the continents but ignored by the Sri Lankan judiciary, states that the discretional recognition of a judge’s judicial work by the executive jeopardises its independence.

An alternative option

Finally, I wish to conclude by offering an alternative option to the Government which I would ordinarily not support.

Some previous governments have succeeded in ignoring sound constitutional practice and securing the appointment as Chief Justice of candidates of their choice.

For example, in 1955, Sir John Kotelawela secured the premature retirement of Chief Justice Sir Alan Rose, six years before the due date, to enable him to appoint Attorney-General Basnayake to that office.

In 1974, Victor Tennekoon was appointed Chief Justice superseding four Judges who were senior to him in what Justice Minister Felix R. Dias Bandaranaike described to me as ‘a Kandyan coup’.

In 1977, President Jayewardene appointed his own personal legal adviser, Neville Samarakone as Chief Justice, ignoring the claim of Justice Samarawickrema who had by then served eleven years in the Supreme Court. In 1988, President Jayewardene again ignored the most senior Judge, Justice Wanasundera, and appointed Justice Parinda Ranasinghe as Chief Justice.

In 1999, President Kumaratunge appointed Attorney-General Sarath Silva as Chief Justice, superseding five Judges who were senior to him when he had previously served four months on the Court.

In 2013, President Rajapakse purported to appoint the legal adviser to the Cabinet, Mohan Peiris, as Chief Justice following the disputed removal of the incumbent, Shirani Bandaranayake, and ignoring the most senior remaining member on the Court.

That leaves me with the question – would it not be a better option if the President were to let the present Chief Justice retire on the due date, and then find an individual acceptable to him from among the present Judges or from the Bar or from elsewhere, to serve as Chief Justice, instead of tinkering with the integrity of the Constitution?

(The author, a former Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, is the Rapporteur of the UN sponsored Judicial Integrity Group of Chief Justices which drafted the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and its 175-page Commentary, both of which have since been endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly and published in all six UN languages)

A parliamentary oversight committee has raised concerns that delays in expanding Port of Colombo risks eroding Sri Lanka’s competitive position as India accelerates the development of the Vizhinjam International Seaport and regional port capacity expands.

The concerns were raised by the Sectoral Oversight Committee (SOC) on Infrastructure and Strategic Development during a review of the Sri Lanka Ports Authority’s (SLPA) operations, financial performance, and development program.

The Vizhinjam International Seaport in Kerala, India, is being developed as a deep-water transshipment hub to serve international shipping routes. Located close to major maritime corridors, the port has a natural draft of 24 metres and is designed to handle ultra-large container vessels, reducing India’s reliance on overseas transshipment facilities.

Transshipment is the lifeblood of Port of Colombo and one of Sri Lanka’s most important sources of maritime revenue, employment, and foreign exchange earnings. Around 84.5% of the Port’s container throughput consists of transshipment cargo, with a substantial share linked to India.

Any shift in transshipment volumes to competing regional ports, particularly those being developed on the Indian coastline, could affect Colombo’s role as the region’s primary hub, with implications for port revenues, logistics services, and Sri Lanka’s wider economy.

The SOC sought explanations from SLPA officials on the competitive pressures facing Port of Colombo, including the rapid expansion of India’s Vizhinjam Port, Mediterranean Shipping Company’s (MSC) investment in the Indian transshipment hub, and plans to expand capacity at Port of Hambantota.

Members also questioned the progress of projects intended to increase Colombo Port’s handling capacity, citing implementation delays, procurement bottlenecks, and the resulting financial implications for the Government.

The Committee stressed that prolonged delays could undermine Sri Lanka’s competitiveness in the regional maritime sector as neighbouring ports continue to expand capacity and attract shipping lines.

It called for a comprehensive audit to determine the causes of project delays and identify parties responsible, while urging the adoption of stronger procurement and project management practices to prevent similar setbacks.

The Committee reviewed the SLPA’s financial performance during the first six months of 2026 and discussed measures required to sustain its profitability, although no financial figures were disclosed.

The discussions also covered the implementation of recommendations previously made by the Committee and the Authority’s 2024 Annual Report.

Members further examined the development of regional ports, including Hambantota, Galle, and Kankesanthurai, as well as the need to strengthen supporting infrastructure and increase the participation of domestic contractors, consultants, and technical professionals in port development projects.

Concluding the meeting, the Committee called for faster implementation of strategic port projects, stronger institutional accountability, and greater transparency to improve the operational efficiency and long-term profitability of the SLPA.

The meeting was chaired by Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) MP S.M. Marikkar and attended by MPs Ajith P. Perera, Manjula Suraweera Arachchi, Chathura Galappaththi, Ravindra Bandara, Dhanushka Ranganath, and Shantha Padma Kumara, together with the Ports and Civil Aviation Ministry Secretary, SLPA Chairman and Managing Director, and other officials.

Port of Colombo is expected to double its container handling capacity to 15 million Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) by the end of 2026. However, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) has cautioned that geography alone will no longer be enough to preserve Colombo’s position as South Asia’s leading transshipment hub, as competing regional ports expand through investment and policy reforms.

‘Mere reliance on geographical advantage may no longer be sufficient for Sri Lankan ports in maintaining their position as a leading transshipment hub in the region,’ the CBSL said in its last infrastructure report.