Sri Lanka Opposition Unites Against 22nd Amendment, Plans Mass Protest on September 24
Sri Lanka’s opposition parties and civil society groups are stepping up their campaign against the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, with a mass protest planned in Colombo on September 24, 2026.
The proposed constitutional amendment has become a major political and legal issue after the government introduced legislation that would increase the retirement ages of judges in the country’s superior courts. Opposition parties and other groups have raised concerns about judicial independence, democratic institutions and the possible effect of the changes on the judiciary.
The latest development came on September 17, when opposition political leaders and civil society representatives signed a joint statement opposing the proposed amendment. They said the measure could threaten judicial independence, democratic structures and citizens’ rights.
The government, however, has defended the legislation, saying the proposed reforms are intended to improve the efficiency of the justice system, address case backlogs and retain experienced judges.
What Is the 22nd Amendment?
The proposed 22nd Amendment to Sri Lanka’s Constitution primarily concerns the retirement age of judges and the structure of the Court of Appeal.
Under the draft legislation:
The retirement age of Supreme Court judges would increase from 65 to 67.
The retirement age of Court of Appeal judges would rise from 63 to 65.
The Chief Justice would retire upon reaching 67 or completing six years as Chief Justice, whichever comes first.
The maximum number of Court of Appeal judges would increase from 19 to 24.
A separate Judicature (Amendment) Bill would also change retirement ages for judges serving in the lower levels of the judiciary.
The government presented both bills in Parliament on August 18, 2026. Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara said the changes were part of a broader judicial reform programme and would improve the efficiency of the country's justice system.
Why Are Opposition Parties Protesting?
The opposition's objections focus mainly on the potential effect of extending the tenure of senior judges.
Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has argued that the proposed changes could undermine judicial independence and the rule of law. He announced that the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) would organize a peaceful public protest in Colombo on September 24.
The opposition's concerns are not limited to one political party. Representatives from several opposition groups and civil society organizations signed the joint statement on September 17.
The signatories said they were joining forces to oppose what they regard as risks to democratic institutions and judicial independence.
These are the opposition and civil society groups' stated concerns; they are not an established finding that the amendment itself would undermine judicial independence.
Mass Protest Planned for September 24
The proposed Colombo protest is scheduled for September 24, with organizers planning a large public mobilisation around the Parliament area.
The Freedom Action Centre for Protection of Democracy said opposition parties both inside and outside Parliament, together with civil society organizations, would participate. Reports have identified the Parliament Junction/Polduwa Junction area as the planned location.
The planned demonstration follows an earlier protest held in Colombo on September 3, when SJB members and other political groups demonstrated against the proposed constitutional changes near Fort Railway Station.
The September 24 event could therefore become an important test of how broadly opposition parties and civil society organizations can coordinate their campaign against the legislation.
What Does the Government Say?
The Sri Lankan government has rejected the argument that the amendment is designed to benefit particular judges or interfere with judicial independence.
In a response to concerns raised by a UN Special Rapporteur, the government said the proposed changes were intended to strengthen the capacity of the justice system by addressing case backlogs and delays, improving access to justice and retaining judicial expertise and institutional knowledge.
The government has also pointed to wider judicial reforms, including plans to increase court capacity and address vacancies.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has defended the proposed changes on similar grounds, saying the reforms are needed as the government attempts to speed up judicial proceedings and deal with the backlog of cases.
The dispute therefore involves two competing positions: the government describes the amendment as an administrative and judicial-efficiency reform, while opponents argue that extending judges' terms could create risks for judicial independence and institutional checks and balances.
Legal Challenges Are Already Underway
The controversy has also moved beyond political protests and into the courts.
Opposition MP and Attorney-at-Law Dayasiri Jayasekera filed a petition before Sri Lanka's Supreme Court challenging the proposed amendment, particularly the provisions dealing with the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges.
The Centre for Policy Alternatives and its Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, also filed a petition seeking a determination that the relevant provision is inconsistent with Article 3 of the Constitution and therefore requires approval through a referendum.
The Supreme Court subsequently heard arguments concerning petitions challenging the proposed legislation. The Attorney General's Department argued that the reforms were designed to improve the efficiency and capacity of the judicial system and would not undermine judicial independence.
This judicial process is important because the constitutional route for the amendment depends partly on the Supreme Court's determination regarding the provisions being challenged.
Why the Retirement Age Matters
The retirement-age provision is at the centre of the controversy because it could allow senior judges to remain in office for longer.
Supporters of the measure argue that experienced judges can help courts manage complicated cases and preserve institutional knowledge. The government has linked the reform to Sri Lanka's existing backlog of cases and the need to improve the speed of judicial proceedings.
Opponents, meanwhile, are concerned about the institutional implications of extending the tenure of judges, particularly if the changes could affect judges already serving on the superior courts.
That disagreement explains why the proposal has attracted attention beyond Parliament, including from the legal profession and international observers.
What Happens Next?
The next major developments will depend on the Supreme Court's determination and the subsequent parliamentary process.
President Dissanayake said in early September that the government expected to proceed with the amendment after receiving the Supreme Court's determination.
Meanwhile, opposition parties are preparing for the September 24 demonstration and have indicated that they intend to continue challenging the legislation through constitutional and political channels.
The outcome could have implications beyond the retirement age of judges because the debate has become closely connected with broader questions about judicial independence, constitutional checks and balances and the relationship between the executive, legislature and judiciary.
What to Watch on September 24
The September 24 protest will be worth watching for several reasons:
The number and range of opposition parties participating
The involvement of civil society and professional organizations
Whether the protest remains peaceful
Further statements from the government and opposition leadership
Any developments from the Supreme Court
The government's next parliamentary steps
Whether additional legal challenges emerge
The political response could also influence the broader public debate surrounding the proposed constitutional changes.
Bottom Line
Sri Lanka's proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment has developed into a significant political and legal dispute. The legislation would raise the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67, Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65, and increase the maximum number of Court of Appeal judges.
Opposition parties and civil society groups say they are concerned about judicial independence and democratic institutions, while the government maintains that the changes are designed to address court backlogs, improve efficiency and retain judicial expertise.
With a joint opposition statement now signed and a mass protest planned for September 24 in Colombo, the amendment is likely to remain a major issue in Sri Lanka's political and constitutional debate. The Supreme Court's determination and the government's subsequent parliamentary actions will be the key developments to monitor.
Follow the blog for more global business, economic and political developments that could affect markets and investors.
This article is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice.