Reaching a decision on a much debated national level topic, the Constitutional Council (CC) this week decided to reject the recommendation for an extension of the tenure of Attorney General (AG) President’s Counsel (PC) Sanjay Rajaratnam. The recommendation, submitted by President Ranil Wickremesinghe, sought to extend the AG’s tenure by six-months.

The proposal had been criticised in various manners in the political arena and also among the public. These criticisms include opinions expressed by politicians such as Prof. G.L. Peiris that the proposed extension constitutes a potential threat to the independence of the AG’s position and a violation of the Constitution. There are also claims that the approval of the extension would be beneficial to the President in terms of the AG’s allegiance.

Regardless of these claims, there are other clear issues pertaining to the request for a tenure extension for the AG. 

There should be a justifiable reason to keep the AG in his position for another six months, or any public official for that matter, and in this case, no such reason had been mentioned. In a pressing situation that requires the services of Rajaratnam himself because no one else can do what is expected of him, or if there are practical issues in appointing Rajaratnam’s successor, which are unlikely to be the case, a service extension could perhaps be justified. Even then, the authorities could keep Rajaratnam in another position that allows him to provide that contribution while still going ahead with appointing a new AG.

The President may have the discretion to recommend a tenure extension for Rajaratnam and the CC may have the power to allow or deny such recommendation. However, whoever recommends a tenure extension for such a high level official is still accountable to the people and public institutions.

This is also a matter of the smooth functioning of the public sector, which inevitably involves promotions and retirements. When one official is allowed to remain in their position for no justifiable reason, it adversely impacts the officials next in line. It goes without a saying that when it comes to high level positions such as the AG, these successors are those with years if not decades of experience. At the same time, retirement is inevitable for any public official, which should not be interfered with unless there is a pressing need that cannot be addressed in any other way. Therefore, had the proposed tenure extension been implemented, it would have been tantamount to an unwarranted interference with the administration of the public sector.

In this context, it is crucial to understand that providing tenure extensions is not something one can do merely because they want to, and even if someone had the power to do that, it should be a last resort. The culture of individuals remaining in their official positions indefinitely and unnecessarily which prevents opportunities for their successors, which we see in the country’s political system, should not be introduced to the public sector. That would create a series of issues in terms of officials’ and institutions’ performance, integrity, and contribution to the public. Needless to say, it would also create a concerning situation with regard to the public funds spent to maintain these officials and institutions.

The abovementioned incident should set a precedent. In the future, requests for tenure extensions for any public official should be supported with justifiable reasons as to why an extension is needed and why a measure other than an extension would not suffice. Such accountability and transparency is a need of the hour if Sri Lanka is to benefit from the ongoing public sector reforms which the Government says are absolutely necessary.