Commonwealth Lawyers Association President raises concerns over Supreme Court hearing on 22nd Amendment petitions

President of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, Steven Thiru, has raised concerns regarding the procedural conduct and bench composition during the Supreme Court hearing on the government’s 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill.

Addressing the media following the conclusion of the proceedings, Steven Thiru revealed that the international body would be preparing a formal report based on its observations in court.

Highlighting key procedural issues, Thiru noted that while the bench showed patience during initial submissions, the refusal to grant the petitioners' counsel an oral right of reply was highly unusual. "I observed the full proceedings today, and based on our initial observations, we will prepare a report. Throughout the day, the judges handled the matter with great patience, giving counsel ample time to make their submissions. However, towards the end, it was quite unfortunate that when the petitioners' counsel sought to reply, they were not given the opportunity to present an oral response and were instead instructed to file a written submission. An oral right of reply is standard practice in important cases like this across most jurisdictions, so it is uncommon and unfortunate that they were not granted one, in our view," he stated.

He further expressed apprehension over the bench’s structure and presiding officers, citing concerns shared by members of the local bar. He pointed out that despite the profound implications for judicial independence, a request for an enlarged or full bench was turned down, while senior members of the judiciary were notably absent from the panel. "This is a very important case that concerns the independence of the judiciary. Usually, the largest bench would hear such a matter, and I am told that was rejected. Concerns were also expressed as to why the other most senior members of the judiciary did not sit alongside the Chief Justice, as top office bearers typically sit together in cases of this importance across other jurisdictions. Questions were also raised regarding whether the Chief Justice should have presided, or whether recusal would have better ensured the appearance of absolute fairness," he added.

Underscoring the broader stakes involved, Thiru warned of the long-term impact on public trust, describing the judiciary as the ultimate safeguard for citizens. "The independence of the judiciary is a vital and precious principle that must be protected and defended at all costs. Leaving aside legal arguments, if there is any doubt that steps have been taken which could damage that independence, those doubts must be dispelled. Across the Commonwealth, when public confidence in a judiciary suffers, it takes a very long time to recover, and in some countries, it has still not recovered. The judiciary is the last bastion of defence for citizens against the might of the state. When the dust settles, the fundamental question that must be asked is whether what has happened increases public confidence in the judiciary or diminishes it," he emphasised.

His remarks followed the official conclusion of the Supreme Court hearings on the petitions challenging the draft legislation earlier today.

 A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena wrapped up proceedings after considering submissions from the Attorney General, petitioners, and intervening parties.

The court announced that its confidential determination on the bill's constitutionality will be forwarded directly to the Speaker of Parliament, while directing all parties to file any remaining written submissions before 3pm tomorrow.