“I Take the Risk”: President Anura Kumara Dissanayake Signals Determination to Challenge the Status Quo
As the debate over constitutional reform intensifies, the President argues that leadership requires courage, judicial reform cannot be postponed indefinitely, and public confidence must take priority over entrenched interests.
COLOMBO — “If I want to implement system change, obviously I need to take the risk. I need to face the challenges.”
That is the central message emerging from President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s response to questions raised by Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) President Rajeev Amarasuriya concerning constitutional reform and the proposed implementation of the 22nd Amendment.
The exchange has brought an important question to the forefront of Sri Lankan politics: should constitutional reform be delayed because it presents challenges to established institutions, or should an elected government be prepared to confront those challenges in pursuit of a more accountable and efficient system?
For President Dissanayake and the National People's Power (NPP) government, the argument is increasingly about the meaning of the mandate they received from the electorate. Their position is that a government elected on a promise of systemic change cannot fulfil that commitment by preserving every existing arrangement simply because reform may generate resistance.
The President's reported response was notable not only for its substance but also for its calm and measured tone. Rather than presenting reform as a confrontation with individuals or institutions, he framed it as a responsibility of leadership.
The message was straightforward: if change is necessary to serve the people, the government must be prepared to face the consequences of pursuing it.
A Mandate to Change the System
President Dissanayake came to power promising a departure from the traditional political culture that many Sri Lankans associate with privilege, political patronage and institutional inefficiency.
The NPP's political appeal was built around the demand for a different system of governance—one in which public institutions would be accountable, the law would apply equally and the interests of ordinary citizens would not be subordinated to those of influential groups.
Constitutional reform is therefore more than a technical exercise for the government. It is part of a wider political commitment to demonstrate that democratic institutions can be changed when they no longer adequately serve the public.
However, a constitutional amendment must be assessed according to its actual provisions, its legal implications and the constitutional procedures required for its adoption. A government's electoral mandate does not remove those requirements. Equally, institutional objections should be examined on their merits rather than treated as an automatic veto on reform.
That is where the debate surrounding the BASL and the proposed 22nd Amendment becomes particularly significant.
The legal profession has a legitimate responsibility to scrutinise constitutional changes, protect judicial independence and ensure that the rule of law is upheld. But the public also has a legitimate expectation that professional institutions will explain how their objections serve the wider interests of justice.
The central question is whether the debate can move beyond institutional disagreement towards practical solutions for the problems confronting ordinary Sri Lankans.
The Judiciary's Backlog: A Problem the Public Cannot Ignore
One of the most pressing concerns facing Sri Lanka's justice system is the delay experienced by litigants waiting for their cases to be heard and resolved.
For a person seeking justice, the passage of time can be devastating. A commercial dispute can threaten a business. A property case can leave a family uncertain about its future. A criminal case can place enormous pressure on defendants, witnesses and victims alike.
Justice delayed can undermine confidence in the entire legal system, particularly when citizens believe that the process is too expensive, too complicated or too slow.
The problem cannot be attributed to a single institution or group. Court backlogs may reflect insufficient judicial resources, vacancies, procedural complexity, repeated postponements, inadequate administrative capacity and weaknesses in case management. The respective responsibilities of the judiciary, the government, the legal profession and other institutions must be examined carefully.
Nevertheless, the public is entitled to ask a direct question: what concrete measures are being proposed to reduce these delays?
If the BASL objects to a particular constitutional or legislative reform, it should be able to explain not only the legal concerns involved but also the alternative measures it recommends to improve access to justice.
Could the association support stronger case-management procedures? Could it work with the judiciary to discourage unnecessary adjournments? Could it promote more effective mediation and alternative dispute resolution where appropriate? Could it develop professional standards that improve efficiency without compromising a client's right to a fair hearing?
These are practical questions that deserve serious answers.
The objective should not be to weaken the independence of the judiciary. It should be to strengthen the administration of justice so that independence is accompanied by efficiency, transparency and public confidence.
Lawyers and the Question of Accountability
There is another issue that deserves public discussion: accountability in the provision of legal services.
Sri Lankan citizens frequently have to consider the financial burden of obtaining legal representation. Court proceedings can involve professional fees, administrative expenses and repeated appearances over extended periods.
The public is entitled to ask whether legal fees are clearly explained, whether clients receive appropriate documentation for payments, and whether they are informed about the progress and likely costs of their cases.
A simple question captures the wider concern: should clients be able to expect a proper receipt and a transparent explanation of the fees they pay to their lawyers?
The answer should be yes, subject to applicable professional and legal requirements.
Such questions should not be interpreted as an accusation against every member of the legal profession. Many lawyers perform essential public services, represent vulnerable clients and work under difficult conditions. The legal profession also has a duty to protect confidentiality, professional independence and the legitimate interests of clients.
However, public trust depends on demonstrable standards of conduct. Transparency in fees, clear communication, professional discipline and efficient representation would help reinforce confidence in the profession.
The BASL, as a representative professional body, has an opportunity to lead this discussion by promoting practical standards and working with relevant authorities to address public concerns.
If the government is expected to demonstrate accountability, professional institutions should be willing to consider how accountability can be strengthened within their own areas of responsibility.
Is Reform a Threat to the Elite?
President Dissanayake's political argument is that the government must be willing to change arrangements that protect a narrow group at the expense of the wider population.
That is a powerful political principle, but it must be applied carefully. Not every objection to reform represents an attempt to protect privilege. Some objections may identify genuine constitutional risks, unintended consequences or threats to institutional independence.
The distinction matters.
A democratic government should listen to credible legal arguments, publish its reasoning and ensure that reforms comply with the Constitution. At the same time, the existence of professional opposition should not automatically prevent legitimate efforts to improve public institutions.
The test should be whether a proposed reform advances the public interest, respects fundamental rights and strengthens the constitutional order.
Sri Lanka needs institutions that are independent enough to resist political interference and accountable enough to respond to legitimate public concerns. These principles are complementary, not contradictory.
The NPP government will ultimately be judged not simply by how forcefully it speaks about system change, but by whether its policies produce measurable improvements in people's lives.
The BASL Must Respond With Solutions
The debate now presents an opportunity for the BASL to demonstrate leadership beyond defending its position on a particular amendment.
If its concerns relate to the constitutional implications of the proposed 22nd Amendment, it should articulate those concerns clearly and identify any provisions that require revision.
If it believes the government's proposed approach could undermine judicial independence, it should explain the precise risks and suggest safeguards.
If the association believes that existing laws and procedures are sufficient to address judicial delays, it should set out a credible programme for implementing those measures in cooperation with the relevant institutions.
The public deserves more than an exchange of opposing positions. It deserves a serious discussion about how justice can be delivered more quickly, affordably and fairly.
The government, for its part, must ensure that constitutional reform is transparent, legally sound and consistent with democratic principles. It should not use public frustration with court delays as a justification for measures that could compromise judicial independence.
The challenge is to achieve both reform and constitutional integrity.
Should Rajeev Amarasuriya Resign?
The political controversy also raises questions about the leadership of BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya and whether the association's position on the 22nd Amendment reflects the expectations of the wider public.
Some critics may argue that, if the association's opposition to the proposed reform fails to secure its intended outcome, its leadership should reconsider its position.
However, a constitutional proposal being approved or an opposing argument being unsuccessful does not, by itself, establish that the president of a professional association has failed in his duties. Professional associations routinely engage in legal and constitutional debates in which their positions may not prevail.
There is no automatic basis for demanding Amarasuriya's resignation solely because of disagreement over an amendment. Any legitimate challenge to his leadership should be assessed against the association's constitution, its governance arrangements and the responsibilities attached to his office.
Nevertheless, the BASL leadership should recognise that public confidence cannot be sustained by professional standing alone. It also depends on whether the association communicates effectively, responds to legitimate criticism and demonstrates a commitment to improving the administration of justice.
Amarasuriya and his colleagues have an opportunity to show that defending the rule of law also means addressing the everyday difficulties experienced by people seeking justice.
The Real Test of System Change
President Dissanayake's reported message—that leadership requires a willingness to take risks and face challenges—captures the political expectations surrounding the NPP government.
But taking risks is not enough. Responsible leadership requires identifying the problem, presenting a legally defensible solution, listening to legitimate objections and accepting accountability for the outcome.
The same standard applies to the BASL and the wider legal profession. Defending constitutional principles is essential, but so is explaining how those principles can coexist with a more efficient justice system.
Sri Lanka cannot afford an endless contest between political leaders and professional institutions while ordinary citizens wait for their cases to be resolved.
The public wants a judiciary that is independent, courts that function efficiently, lawyers who communicate transparently with their clients and institutions that accept scrutiny without treating it as an attack.
If the proposed 22nd Amendment is intended to address structural weaknesses, its provisions must be examined openly and rigorously. If alternative reforms would achieve the same objectives with fewer constitutional risks, those alternatives should be considered seriously.
Ultimately, the measure of success will not be whether the President defeats the BASL in a political argument, or whether the BASL succeeds in resisting the government. It will be whether Sri Lanka emerges with stronger institutions and greater public confidence in the rule of law.
For President Dissanayake, the challenge is to translate his promise of system change into lawful and measurable reform. For the BASL, the challenge is to demonstrate that its defence of constitutional principles is accompanied by practical proposals to improve justice for everyone.
And for the public, the question remains simple: when will the institutions entrusted with delivering justice make the system work more effectively for ordinary Sri Lankans?