By Roshan Pussewela –

Let me start by putting my cards on the table.

I support the NPP Government. I want it to succeed, and perhaps more than anything else, I want it to succeed in doing what successive Sri Lankan governments have spectacularly failed to do: bring those who abused political power and robbed this country to justice.

That includes the Rajapaksa era.

After the war, we watched a political culture emerge in which one family and those surrounding it appeared almost untouchable. Power became increasingly concentrated, allegations of corruption and abuse accumulated, and critics and opponents faced an environment of fear and intimidation.

They behaved less like temporary custodians of public office and more like a ruling dynasty.

Then the country collapsed.

Ordinary Sri Lankans queued for fuel, searched for medicine, sat through power cuts and watched inflation destroy their incomes and savings.

So forgive me if I have very little sympathy for politicians now suddenly discovering an enthusiastic passion for accountability and institutional integrity.

I want the past investigated.

Where there is evidence, I want prosecutions.

And where guilt is established in a court of law, I want punishment.

No political deals. No disappearing files. No VIP justice.

But there is a line we must never cross.

The Problem With The 22nd Amendment

The Government’s proposed 22nd Amendment would increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65. It would also increase the number of Court of Appeal judges.

On its face, I don’t find this particularly outrageous.

Sri Lanka has an enormous court backlog. Experienced judges are valuable. And there is nothing magical about the age of 65 that suddenly renders an excellent Supreme Court judge incapable of dispensing justice at 65 years and one day.

There is also a practical issue that deserves more attention.

Some extremely important cases are currently progressing through our courts. If experienced judges retire while complex proceedings are approaching critical stages, judicial continuity can be affected and further delays can follow.

And Sri Lanka knows all about delay.

For decades, delay has been one of the greatest friends of political impunity.

• A case begins with enormous publicity.

• Then come the adjournments.

• Governments change.

• Witnesses disappear.

• Public attention moves on.

• Years pass.

• And eventually nobody remembers what happened to the case.

We cannot continue like that.

So I understand why the Government wants to retain experienced judges for longer.

But understanding the Government’s argument does not mean giving it a blank cheque.

Here Is Where I Draw The Line

There is one argument supporters of the Government must resist:

“We need these particular judges to remain because we need them to convict or punish members of previous governments.”

No.

However angry we are about what happened to Sri Lanka, that cannot be our position.

We can demand investigations.

We can demand prosecutions.

We can demand that politically powerful defendants stop escaping accountability through endless delays.

But we cannot demand a particular verdict.

If we start deciding who is guilty first and then designing the judicial system around obtaining that result, we haven’t created system change.

We have simply changed who controls the system.

That is precisely what the NPP was elected to end.

And Yes, I Am Suspicious Of Some Of The Opposition

Let’s not pretend politics has suddenly disappeared from this debate.

Some of the loudest voices attacking the Government come from political movements that governed Sri Lanka during the very decades in which corruption, nepotism, cronyism and economic mismanagement flourished.

Apparently some politicians have discovered an extraordinary affection for judicial independence.

Better late than never, I suppose.

And yes, I suspect some people are terrified that genuine anti-corruption investigations may eventually arrive at their own doorstep.

But that does not mean every criticism of the 22nd Amendment is dishonest.

The Bar Association has raised serious concerns about changing rules affecting the tenure of sitting judges. Those concerns deserve consideration.

An argument does not become false simply because a hypocrite repeats it.

That is where we supporters of the NPP need to be careful.

We cannot defend something today that we would condemn tomorrow if another government did exactly the same thing.

Here is my test:

Would I be comfortable giving this same power to a future President whom I completely distrust?

If the answer is no, then I should think very carefully before giving it to a President I support.

That is how constitutional safeguards should work.

NPP Has An Opportunity Here

The Government should not become defensive.

Make the case.

If increasing judicial retirement ages will reduce delays, show us how.

If impending retirements threaten continuity in important cases, explain the problem.

If increasing the Court of Appeal is necessary to tackle the backlog, publish the figures.

And put safeguards around the reform so that no future government can manipulate judicial tenure for political convenience.

Transparency would strengthen the NPP’s argument enormously.

Because ultimately I want exactly what the Government says it wants:

justice.

If members of the Rajapaksa family, former ministers, officials, businessmen or anyone else committed crimes, investigate them.

If the evidence justifies prosecution, prosecute them.

And if an independent court finds them guilty, punish them according to law.

No surname should provide immunity.

No former office should provide immunity.

No political party should provide immunity.

But equally, nobody should be convicted because the Government — or people like me who support it — desperately wants them convicted.

That is revenge, not justice.

Make The Convictions Unassailable

This is actually why judicial independence matters so much to those of us who want accountability.

Imagine a former political heavyweight is convicted after an independent trial on overwhelming evidence.

What can he say?

Very little.

Now imagine exactly the same person is convicted but can claim that the Government changed constitutional arrangements specifically to keep judges it expected to deliver that result.

Suddenly he has been handed a political defence:

“This was revenge. The court was politically manipulated.”

Why give him that weapon?

If these individuals are guilty, I don’t merely want them convicted. I want them convicted through a process whose legitimacy they cannot credibly challenge.

That is far more powerful.

And that is why supporters of the NPP should care about judicial independence every bit as much as its critics.

Justice!! Not Revenge!!

I remain firmly behind this Government’s attempt to dismantle Sri Lanka’s culture of political impunity.

I want the investigations.

I want the prosecutions.

I want the stolen assets recovered wherever possible.

And yes, where guilt is established, I want to see powerful people who once behaved as though they were above the law finally face the consequences.

But we cannot destroy one bad system by creating another.

Give investigators the independence to investigate.

Give prosecutors the resources to prosecute.

Give judges the capacity to judge.

Then let the evidence decide the outcome.

Because the greatest achievement of the NPP will not simply be putting yesterday’s powerful politicians behind bars.

It will create a Sri Lanka where nobody Rajapaksa, Wickremesinghe, Premadasa, Dissanayake or whoever comes next can ever again believe that political power places them above the law.

That is justice.

That Is System Change!

And that is the Sri Lanka I want this Government to build.