Debate on Appointments of Retired Judges and Ex-Service Members

The Debate on Appointments of Retired Judges and Ex-Service Members: A Growing Concern in Sri Lanka

In Sri Lanka, the appointment of retired judges and former military officers to key public positions is becoming a contentious issue. While many acknowledge the value of these individuals’ expertise and experience, there are growing concerns that such appointments undermine the independence of crucial state institutions. This issue is particularly sensitive in the context of Sri Lanka’s governance, where appointments often seem intertwined with political interests.

Why Are These Appointments Controversial?

When a retired judge or a former military officer takes up a high-profile role immediately after their retirement, it raises questions about the impartiality of their previous decisions. People often wonder whether the individual was motivated by the possibility of post-retirement appointments rather than making decisions purely based on the law or their duties. This creates a perception that their past decisions could have been influenced by future promises or political loyalty, especially when those post-retirement roles are closely tied to the government.

In Sri Lanka, this issue is particularly noticeable in the case of military and police chiefs, as well as judges appointed to various public roles. These appointments are often seen as rewards for loyalty to the ruling government rather than based solely on merit or experience. This perception erodes trust in the public institutions that these individuals are now part of, leading to a growing concern about political influence within these sectors.

A Larger Pattern of Political Appointments

This trend isn’t unique to Sri Lanka. Around the world, including in countries like the U.S., post-retirement appointments of judges and former military officials have raised alarms about conflicts of interest and the erosion of judicial and institutional independence. For example, retired judges sometimes accept lucrative positions in private corporations or political consulting firms, which can create doubts about their neutrality during their time on the bench.

In Sri Lanka, the practice is especially concerning given the country’s history of political patronage. The leadership of political parties, like the New People’s Party (NPP), have been accused of using state institutions for political gain. This extends beyond judges and military officers, with other public servants also often selected based on their political affiliation rather than merit.

What’s Wrong With These Appointments?

The main issue with these appointments is the perception of compromised independence. The legal and military sectors are supposed to be free from political interference to ensure that justice is delivered fairly and that the country’s defense is handled objectively. However, when individuals take up positions in these sectors after being closely involved with political figures, it can appear as though their previous decisions were influenced by their political ambitions, rather than by the law or professional duty.

This is not to say that retired judges or military officials do not have valuable expertise that can benefit the public sector. In fact, their experience can be invaluable, especially in roles that require deep legal or defense knowledge. However, their appointments need to be handled with caution, and the process must ensure that these roles are free from political interference.

A Call for Greater Transparency

To address these concerns, the Lawyers’ Collective in Sri Lanka has suggested reforms that aim to preserve the integrity of judicial and military appointments. One proposal is that judges should not take any post-retirement position that offers them financial gain unless explicitly authorized by the law. The group also suggests that retirement benefits for judges should be equal to those in service, helping to discourage post-retirement appointments made solely for financial reasons.

Similarly, the appointment of military and police chiefs should be based on merit rather than political loyalty. This would help ensure that such appointments are made for the right reasons: expertise and capability, not political ties. Transparent, independent commissions could be established to oversee such appointments, ensuring that public trust is maintained.

The List  

The list of judges and exservice chiefs been appointed to high post has all most become the norme and the NPP government has alo take the same route .Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya: After retiring as Chief Justice, he was appointed as the Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).Jayantha Jayasuriya is now named to assume  duties as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York.

Admiral Ravindra Wijegunaratne: The former Chief of Defence Staff was appointed as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to Pakistan.

Conclusion: The Need for Reform

The growing trend of appointing retired judges and former military officials to influential roles raises important questions about the independence of Sri Lanka’s key state institutions. Whether in the judiciary, military, or other public sectors, these appointments must be made based on expertise and public interest, not political expediency.

As Sri Lanka faces these challenges, it is vital that reforms are introduced to ensure that public institutions remain independent, transparent, and free from undue political influence. Only then can trust in the country’s governance be restored and safeguarded.