Sri Lanka is facing a fresh political and judicial controversy as the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK), the country’s main Tamil political party, demands a national referendum on the proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment.

The controversial amendment seeks to extend the retirement age of judges across Sri Lanka’s higher courts. Under the proposed changes, the retirement age for Supreme Court judges would increase from 65 to 67, while Court of Appeal judges would retire at 65 instead of 63.

The bill also proposes a retirement age of 62 for High Court, District Court and Magistrates’ Court judges.

ITAK argues that the proposed constitutional amendment directly concerns the sovereignty of the people and should therefore be put to a public vote. The demand has added to a growing debate over judicial independence and the separation of powers in Sri Lanka.

The bill has been on the Sri Lankan Parliament’s order paper since August 18 and is expected to move to its second reading after the Supreme Court delivers its decision on petitions challenging the constitutionality of the proposed amendment.

Sri Lanka Judges’ Retirement Age Row: ITAK Calls For Referendum On 22nd Amendment

Sri Lanka's Supreme Court on Thursday (January 12) ordered former President Maithripala Sirisena to pay $273,334 (100 million Sir Lankan Rupees) as compensation to the victim fund of the 2019 Easter bombings for his negligence in preventing one of the worst terror strikes in the country despite having credible information of an imminent attack.

Sri Lanka's Supreme Court on Thursday (January 12) ordered former President Maithripala Sirisena to pay $273,334 (100 million Sir Lankan Rupees) as compensation to the victim fund of the 2019 Easter bombings for his negligence in preventing one of the worst terror strikes in the country despite having credible information of an imminent attack. A seven-member bench while delivering its judgment relating to 12 fundamental rights petitions said that Easter Sunday was just a few weeks away when the heads-up about the imminent attack came from India, but there was little alertness or perceptiveness shown by officials to carry out any measures to safeguard any of the churches across the country, a report by news agency PTI said. These 12 petitioners included families of the victims, the Catholic clergy, and the lawyers' body Bar Association of Sri Lanka. ALSO READ | #IshiniGate: Sri Lankan influencer accused of siphoning $82,000 raised for Easter attack victims Apart from Maithripala Sirisena, the court also ordered other former top officials to pay compensation to the victims' fund. Sri Lanka's former secretary of defence Hemasiri Fernando has been ordered to pay around $136,062 (50 million Sri Lankan Rupees) while the former Chief of National Intelligence (CNI) Sisira Mendis will pay $27,212 (10 million Sri Lankan Rupees) as compensation. Former Inspector General of Police (IGP) Pujith Jayasundera and the former Director of the State Intelligence Service (SIS) Nilantha Jayawardene were ordered to pay $204,093 (75 million Sri Lankan Rupees) each to the victims' fund. Each victim is to be paid $2,721 (one million Sri Lankan Rupees), said an IANS report on Thursday. Easter attacks: 269 killed, at least 500 injured On April 21, 2019, three churches Negombo, Batticaloa and the capital Colombo and three luxury hotels in Colombo were targeted in a series of Islamic State-related suicide bombings. On the same day, there were smaller explosions at a housing complex in Dematagoda and a guest house in Dehiwala. A total of 269 people, including 45 foreigners, were killed in these attacks while at least 500 were injured. The attack caused a political storm in Sri Lanka as former President Maithripala Sirisena and former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe were blamed for their inability to prevent the attacks despite prior intelligence being made available. At that time, Sirisena appointed a presidential panel of inquiry after the attacks. The panel ironically found him guilty of his failure to prevent the bombings. However, Sirisena pleaded not guilty to the charge in the case filed after the panel's findings. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

2019 Sri Lanka Easter attacks: Ex-President to pay $273k as compensation to victims' fund

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has largely cleared the 20th Amendment of the constitution that aimed at enhancing the Sri Lankan President’s powers.&nbsp; 
 
But it has raised a red flag over four clauses that would require approval by the people at a referendum.

Watch |&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-bill-to-give-more-powers-to-sri-lankan-president-hits-legal-roadblocks-336996/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The Supreme Court’s orders came after opposition parties and civil society appealed. They filed 39 petitions in all to challenge the new amendment. 
 
The controversial 20th Amendment to the Constitution is being considered as contentious by these petitioners because:&nbsp;

1: It would give President Rajapaksa unbridled powers. 
 
2: The president will be able to dissolve the parliament after one year.&nbsp;

3: He will have a say in the appointment of judges and other top officials. 
 
4: The auditor general will not be able to inspect the offices of president and prime minister and others and people with dual citizenship will be allowed to become members of parliament. 
 
So, the prime minister's office and the cabinet will be weakened. The president will be able to change ministers at will. In the case of the Rajapaksas, this may not matter because one brother is the president, the other is the prime minister. 
 
The opposition is up in arms against these proposals. They believe that with these changes the legislature will be reduced to a rubber-stamp parliament. They also have strong objections to allowing those who have dual citizenship to enter the parliament. 
 
The opposition claims that this provision will be used by president Rajapaksa to get his brother basil into the legislature. Basil Rajapaksa is the younger border of Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa. He has both American and Sri Lankan citizenship.&nbsp; 
 
Now, the proposals of the Rajapaksas has received opposition from the most unlikely of quarters. 
A section of powerful Buddhist clergy is against the constitutional changes. 
 
Two chapters of monks say the 20th amendment would "deal a death blow" to democracy in Sri Lanka. 
 
They believe the new system will not have a balance of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. 
&nbsp; 
Since 1978, Sri Lanka has been ruled by powerful executive presidents. That changed in 2015 when an amendment strengthened the parliament and the prime minister. 
&nbsp; 
Independent commissions were put in charge of judiciary appointments, the police, public services and the conduct of elections. 
&nbsp; 
But the Rajapaksas want to change that and take Sri Lanka back to the past.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has largely cleared the 20th Amendment of the constitution that aimed at enhancing the Sri Lankan President’s powers. But it has raised a red flag over four clauses that would require approval by the people at a referendum.

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has largely cleared the 20th Amendment of the constitution that aimed at enhancing the Sri Lankan President’s powers. But it has raised a red flag over four clauses that would require approval by the people at a referendum. Watch | The Supreme Court’s orders came after opposition parties and civil society appealed. They filed 39 petitions in all to challenge the new amendment. The controversial 20th Amendment to the Constitution is being considered as contentious by these petitioners because: 1: It would give President Rajapaksa unbridled powers. 2: The president will be able to dissolve the parliament after one year. 3: He will have a say in the appointment of judges and other top officials. 4: The auditor general will not be able to inspect the offices of president and prime minister and others and people with dual citizenship will be allowed to become members of parliament. So, the prime minister's office and the cabinet will be weakened. The president will be able to change ministers at will. In the case of the Rajapaksas, this may not matter because one brother is the president, the other is the prime minister. The opposition is up in arms against these proposals. They believe that with these changes the legislature will be reduced to a rubber-stamp parliament. They also have strong objections to allowing those who have dual citizenship to enter the parliament. The opposition claims that this provision will be used by president Rajapaksa to get his brother basil into the legislature. Basil Rajapaksa is the younger border of Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa. He has both American and Sri Lankan citizenship. Now, the proposals of the Rajapaksas has received opposition from the most unlikely of quarters. A section of powerful Buddhist clergy is against the constitutional changes. Two chapters of monks say the 20th amendment would "deal a death blow" to democracy in Sri Lanka. They believe the new system will not have a balance of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Since 1978, Sri Lanka has been ruled by powerful executive presidents. That changed in 2015 when an amendment strengthened the parliament and the prime minister. Independent commissions were put in charge of judiciary appointments, the police, public services and the conduct of elections. But the Rajapaksas want to change that and take Sri Lanka back to the past. (With inputs from agencies)

Certain clauses in the proposed 20th Amendment need a public referendum: Sri Lanka Supreme Court

Chief Justice of Sri Lanka's Supreme Court Jayantha Jayasuriya has appointed a five-member bench of the Supreme Court to hear the petitions filed against the government's proposed 20th Amendment to the country's Constitution.

Sri Lankan top court forms 5-judge bench to hear 20A petitions

Sri Lanka's Supreme Court has delayed the death penalty for four people convicted on drug-related offences, one of their lawyers said on Friday, in what would have been the first executions in 43 years.

President Maithripala Sirisena signed death sentences last month for the four convicted on charges of trading and trafficking in drugs, ending a moratorium on capital punishment since 1976.

The top court granted interim relief and will hear the appeal on Oct. 29, said MA Sumanthiran, a lawyer representing one of the appellants.

Sirisena was elected as a reformist in January 2015 but has struggled to fulfil pledges such as addressing human rights abuses, eliminating corruption and ensuring good governance.

His hardline policy on drug crimes is aimed at boosting his chances of re-election this year, political commentators say.

The policy is in part inspired by the Philippines'&nbsp;so-called "war on drugs", where thousands have died in encounters with police.

Many Sri Lankans, including several influential religious leaders, are in favour of reinstating the death penalty to curb rising crime, though rights groups have warned that such a measure would be ineffective.

Sri Lanka has hired two hangmen to prepare for the return of the death penalty.

The last hangman quit in 2014 without ever having to execute anyone, citing stress after seeing the gallows for the first time. Another hangman hired last year never turned up for work.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Sri Lanka's Supreme Court has delayed the death penalty for four people convicted on drug-related offences, one of their lawyers said on Friday, in what would have been the first executions in 43 years.

Sri Lanka's Supreme Court has delayed the death penalty for four people convicted on drug-related offences, one of their lawyers said on Friday, in what would have been the first executions in 43 years. President Maithripala Sirisena signed death sentences last month for the four convicted on charges of trading and trafficking in drugs, ending a moratorium on capital punishment since 1976. The top court granted interim relief and will hear the appeal on Oct. 29, said MA Sumanthiran, a lawyer representing one of the appellants. Sirisena was elected as a reformist in January 2015 but has struggled to fulfil pledges such as addressing human rights abuses, eliminating corruption and ensuring good governance. His hardline policy on drug crimes is aimed at boosting his chances of re-election this year, political commentators say. The policy is in part inspired by the Philippines' so-called "war on drugs", where thousands have died in encounters with police. Many Sri Lankans, including several influential religious leaders, are in favour of reinstating the death penalty to curb rising crime, though rights groups have warned that such a measure would be ineffective. Sri Lanka has hired two hangmen to prepare for the return of the death penalty. The last hangman quit in 2014 without ever having to execute anyone, citing stress after seeing the gallows for the first time. Another hangman hired last year never turned up for work.

Sri Lanka's top court delays first executions in 43 years

In a landmark judgement, Sri Lanka's Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that President Maithripala Sirisena's sacking of parliament last month was illegal.

Delivering the judgement to a packed courtroom, Chief Justice Nalin Perera said the judges agreed that Sirisena violated the constitution when he dissolved the legislature prematurely.

Here's a look at what the Supreme Court's ruling means for the key players in Sri Lanka's political crisis.

Maithripala Sirisena:

The Sri Lankan President triggered the unprecedented political crisis on October 26 when he fired Wickremesinghe and appointed the contentious former strongman Mahinda Rajapakse in his place.

Sirisena then dissolved parliament on November 9 despite provisions that he could not dissolve the legislature until it completes four and a half years out of its five-year term which ends in August 2020.

Now that the country's Supreme Court has termed his move unconstitutional, Sirisena faces the prospect of impeachment proceedings starting against him. Sacked PM Ranil Wickremesinghe's United National Party (UNP) could move to impeach the President - he has the backing of 106 parliamentarians in the 225-member parliament as against 95 for Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa combine.

An impeachment motion, however, requires two-third votes in Parliament, and Wickremesinghe commands only a simple majority. So, the scenario looks highly unlikely for now.

Today's verdict also means that no snap parliamentary election could be called by Sirisena at least until February 2020.

Ranil Wickremesinghe:

Wickremesinghe was unceremoniously ousted from the post of Sri Lanka's prime minister after President Sirisena sacked him in October and installed former president Mahinda Rajapaksa in his place.

Wickremesinghe held his ground without leaving his official residence as he claimed his dismissal was illegal. He said the 19th amendment to the Constitution had made Sirisena powerless to remove a sitting prime minister.

He has won three trust votes in parliament so far. Rajapaksa has so far failed to prove his majority on the floor of the House. Though Wickremesinghe's UNP had the backing of 106 parliamentarians, 117 out of 225 lawmakers in parliament voted to pass a confidence motion in his leadership in the latest trust vote on Wednesday.

And with the Supreme Court also giving a major setback to the President, UNP claims that Sirisena will be left with no choice but to reappoint Wickremesinghe as PM because he would be the only person who commands the confidence in the House.

Mahinda Rajapaksa:

Former Sri Lankan president and pro-China leader Rajapaksa was brought in all of a sudden by President Sirisena after sharp personal differences with Wickremesinghe, but he has so far failed to prove majority in parliament.

Sirisena even sacked parliament when it appeared that Rajapaksa would not be able to muster the support of 113 MPs to gain a simple majority in the 225-member House.

He has so far continued in office with Sirisena's backing despite petitions being filed by mawmakers, asking the court to order him and his ministers to stop functioning.

But with the Supreme Court giving a major blow to Sirisena, his chances of continuing in office appears to be untenable.

After the Supreme Court verdict on Thursday, his son and Member of Parliament in Sri Lanka, Namal Rajapaksa, said on Twitter, "We respect the decision of #lka's Supreme Court, despite the fact that we have reservations regarding its interpretation...We will continue to stand alongside those calling for a parliamentary election, without which there is no real justice for the people of #lka".

In a landmark judgement, Sri Lanka's Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that President Maithripala Sirisena's sacking of parliament last month was illegal. Delivering the judgement to a packed courtroom, Chief Justice Nalin Perera said the judges agreed that Sirisena violated the constitution when he dissolved the legislature prematurely.

In a landmark judgement, Sri Lanka's Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that President Maithripala Sirisena's sacking of parliament last month was illegal. Delivering the judgement to a packed courtroom, Chief Justice Nalin Perera said the judges agreed that Sirisena violated the constitution when he dissolved the legislature prematurely. Here's a look at what the Supreme Court's ruling means for the key players in Sri Lanka's political crisis. Maithripala Sirisena: The Sri Lankan President triggered the unprecedented political crisis on October 26 when he fired Wickremesinghe and appointed the contentious former strongman Mahinda Rajapakse in his place. Sirisena then dissolved parliament on November 9 despite provisions that he could not dissolve the legislature until it completes four and a half years out of its five-year term which ends in August 2020. Now that the country's Supreme Court has termed his move unconstitutional, Sirisena faces the prospect of impeachment proceedings starting against him. Sacked PM Ranil Wickremesinghe's United National Party (UNP) could move to impeach the President - he has the backing of 106 parliamentarians in the 225-member parliament as against 95 for Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa combine. An impeachment motion, however, requires two-third votes in Parliament, and Wickremesinghe commands only a simple majority. So, the scenario looks highly unlikely for now. Today's verdict also means that no snap parliamentary election could be called by Sirisena at least until February 2020. Ranil Wickremesinghe: Wickremesinghe was unceremoniously ousted from the post of Sri Lanka's prime minister after President Sirisena sacked him in October and installed former president Mahinda Rajapaksa in his place. Wickremesinghe held his ground without leaving his official residence as he claimed his dismissal was illegal. He said the 19th amendment to the Constitution had made Sirisena powerless to remove a sitting prime minister. He has won three trust votes in parliament so far. Rajapaksa has so far failed to prove his majority on the floor of the House. Though Wickremesinghe's UNP had the backing of 106 parliamentarians, 117 out of 225 lawmakers in parliament voted to pass a confidence motion in his leadership in the latest trust vote on Wednesday. And with the Supreme Court also giving a major setback to the President, UNP claims that Sirisena will be left with no choice but to reappoint Wickremesinghe as PM because he would be the only person who commands the confidence in the House. Mahinda Rajapaksa: Former Sri Lankan president and pro-China leader Rajapaksa was brought in all of a sudden by President Sirisena after sharp personal differences with Wickremesinghe, but he has so far failed to prove majority in parliament. Sirisena even sacked parliament when it appeared that Rajapaksa would not be able to muster the support of 113 MPs to gain a simple majority in the 225-member House. He has so far continued in office with Sirisena's backing despite petitions being filed by mawmakers, asking the court to order him and his ministers to stop functioning. But with the Supreme Court giving a major blow to Sirisena, his chances of continuing in office appears to be untenable. After the Supreme Court verdict on Thursday, his son and Member of Parliament in Sri Lanka, Namal Rajapaksa, said on Twitter, "We respect the decision of #lka's Supreme Court, despite the fact that we have reservations regarding its interpretation...We will continue to stand alongside those calling for a parliamentary election, without which there is no real justice for the people of #lka".

Sri Lanka verdict: What happens now to Sirisena, Rajapaksa and Wickremesinghe?