The Hon. Ajith P. Perera

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, today is a dark day in our parliamentary history. The supremacy of Parliament—repeatedly affirmed since 2001 by then-Speaker Anura Bandaranaike’s orders and later Speakers—has been undermined by the way the judicial power exercised through courts and the House’s supremacy have been treated.

¶ 02 On 21 November 2025, Members requested a special committee to examine issues in judicial promotions and transfers and to recommend safeguards to prevent future problems. This was not to interfere in judicial acts, annul transfers, or reverse promotions; it was not about judgments or personal matters. Judicial power is exercised through courts, and administration (like promotions) is managed by the Judicial Service Commission with parliamentary-funded support.

¶ 03 Such a proposal must first be placed before the Committee on Parliamentary Business of party leaders. Since 21.11.2025, it was never considered. Each time we raised it, the current Speaker said, “I will look into it and issue an order,” and shelved it, without discussing it even with senior Members who hold responsibilities here.

¶ 04 Yesterday I warned in the House that instead of placing our proposal in the Order Book, it would be rejected outright—and there was a reason. The order that emerged was not drafted by our parliamentary officials or advisors, nor vetted through the Secretariat. It was prepared externally, disregarding our experienced parliamentary staff. This follows past patterns when handling confidence motions—this time with elaborate writing, but wrong is wrong whether in two minutes or half an hour. The Leader of the House attempted to derail this House by avoiding our proposal entirely and presenting erroneous arguments.

¶ 05 The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) submitted a proposal on 29 December 2025 similar to ours. Under our Constitution, the President makes judicial appointments, but numerous recent appointments overlooked seniority, creating serious unease in the judiciary about future security when acting fairly. Hence our proposal.

¶ 06 As the BASL stated: “Traditionally, promotions within the Judiciary have been granted on the basis of seniority. In the recent past, however, there had been occasions where this principle had been departed from. If seniority has been overlooked on the basis of merit, it is observed that presently there are no clear or established guidelines governing the assessment of merit in granting such promotions in the Judiciary. This absence of transparent criteria risks undermining the fairness and consistency of the process.”

¶ 07 We are not attacking the judiciary; we have faith in it. But the constitutional powers and parliamentary conventions have been ignored to politically influence appointments, undermining fair promotional opportunities for Magistrates, District Judges, and High Court Judges. We strongly oppose this. We stand for judicial independence and fairness and will continue to do so.

¶ 08 Thank you for the time, Hon. Presiding Member.