… highlights injustice caused to Justice R. Gurusinghe

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has alleged that due to the failure on the part of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to fill the existing vacancies in the Supreme Court, a Senior Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Dhammika Ganepola, retired at the age of 63 without being considered for, or granted, a promotion to the Supreme Court, to which he was well entitled. The BASL pointed out at the time of Ganepola’s retirement there were four vacancies in the Supreme Court.

In a letter dated 17 August, 2026, addressed to President Dissanayake, the BASL declared that the failure to promote and recognise Ganepola’s distinguished judicial service, resulting in his retirement at the age of 63, is indeed a loss to the Judiciary.

A top BASL spokesman told The Island yesterday (30) that the Bar Council, over the weekend, had decided to release the hitherto confidential letter.

The official said that they also wanted to remind the President of his assurance given to BASL, on 12 August, 2026, that vacancies in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal would be filled as soon as possible, within a month.

The following is the text of the BASL letter, signed by  Rajeev Amarasuriya, President, BASL, and its Secretary Nalin De Silva: “We write further to our letters dated 29th December 2025 and 30th June 2026 in relation to the above, to which we have not received any response.

We also refer to our meeting with Your Excellency on 12th August. As discussed during the meeting, there have been vacancies in the Supreme Court since May 2025, and the number of vacancies has now increased to four (04). There are also four (04) vacancies in the Court of Appeal. These are all matters we have already written to Your Excellency about.

Your Excellency informed the BASL Delegation when we met that you would be taking steps to make recommendations to fill these vacancies as soon as possible, within a month.

We write to reiterate the importance of giving due consideration to the criteria set out in our aforesaid letter dated 29th December 2025. We also wish to emphasise that, in making judicial appointments and promotions, seniority should be given due priority, in keeping with longstanding practice, until such time there are objective and defensible guidelines governing the assessment of merit.

The only justifiable departure to this criterion would be where there exists a specific and recognized demerit in respect of the particular Judge concerned or such other known compelling circumstances that are objectively identifiable such as where a Judge has previously been overlooked for promotion unfairly or conversely, where a Judge has been unfairly previously granted promotions above others.

This approach will safeguard both the integrity of the Judiciary and the trust reposed in it by the public.

Further, while there has been considerable discussion and representation by the Government regarding the importance of retaining experienced judges, as reminded to Your Excellency at our said meeting that, only a few months ago on 8th May 2026, a Senior Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Dhammika Ganepola, retired at the age of 63 without being considered for, or granted, a promotion to the Supreme Court, to which he was well entitled, and in which there were four vacancies at the time.

The failure to promote and recognise his distinguished judicial service, resulting in his retirement at the age of 63, is indeed a loss to the Judiciary.

We also drew Your Excellency’s attention at the said meeting to the fact that the Senior-most Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice R. Gurusinghe, who joined the Judicial Service in 1996, who also Acted in the Office of President of the Court of Appeal (appointed by Your Excellency) on 11th May 2026, is due to retire at the end of this month. In fact, we learnt through the Media that Her Ladyship then Chief Justice Justice Murdu Fernando, PC, had previously in July 2025 recommended to Your Excellency the promotion of Justice R. Gurusinghe to the Supreme Court, but the same is pending from that time.

 He too is well deserving of promotion to the Supreme Court and has already been recommended by the former Chief Justice, and his case must also receive due and urgent consideration before his impending retirement.

We hope that Your Excellency will take due note of and give due regard to the concerns of the Bar, as well as to the established principles, practices and conventions governing judicial appointments, when taking steps to fill these vacancies.

On this, Your Excellency is already open to the accusation that these vacancies have been kept open, to fill with favourites of the Government which is yet another serious indictment on the independence of the judiciary which accusation would be confirmed if recommendations are made outside established practice.

Moreover, the BASL expresses grave concern that withholding promotions of Judicial Officers for extended periods of time places undue pressure on Judicial Officers in the discharge of their duties and constitutes both directly and indirectly, interference with the independence of the Judiciary, in addition to the strain obviously caused to the dispensation of justice in other Courts and the stifling and delay of career progression of Judges legitimately entitled to promotions.

We do hope that Your Excellency would take due note and cognizance of the foregoing when effecting these judicial promotions which have been long overdue and which have already adversely impacted the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of justice.”

The BASL has copied the letter to Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickremaratne, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and all members of the Constitutional Council.