Sri Lanka’s Plan to Recruit 100 Lawyers into Police Sparks Predictable Outrage — But Ajith Dharmapala Misses the Point
By Staff Writer
A proposal by Sri Lanka’s National People’s Power (NPP) government to recruit 100 Attorney-at-Law professionals directly into the police service has triggered a familiar chorus of criticism — loud, indignant, and arguably disconnected from operational reality.
Among the most vocal detractors is UK-based exile commentator Ajith Dharmapala, who has dismissed the initiative as unnecessary, arguing instead for lower-tier internal promotions within the police hierarchy. His contention: that existing officers should be elevated and trained, rather than introducing external legal professionals into what he appears to view as a strictly uniformed domain.
Yet, beneath the rhetoric lies a more fundamental question — does Sri Lanka’s policing architecture currently possess the legal capacity to deal with its mounting case backlog, procedural inefficiencies, and increasingly complex criminal landscape?
A System Under Strain
Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system has long been burdened by delays. Case files move sluggishly between police stations and the Attorney General’s Department; evidentiary gaps routinely undermine prosecutions; and procedural missteps at the investigation stage often result in collapsed cases years later.
At the centre of this dysfunction is a structural deficiency: the absence of embedded legal expertise within frontline policing.
The proposed recruitment of 100 qualified lawyers is designed to address precisely this gap. These professionals are expected to function as legal officers within the police — advising on evidence collection, ensuring procedural compliance, liaising with prosecutors, and accelerating case preparation.
In effect, the reform attempts to align Sri Lanka with modern policing models seen in jurisdictions where legal integration is not an afterthought, but a core operational feature.
Internal Promotion vs External Expertise
Dharmapala’s argument hinges on the idea of internal recruitment. However, this raises practical constraints.
First, there is no publicly available evidence to suggest that the Sri Lankan Police currently has a reserve of 100 Attorney-at-Law-qualified officers ready for immediate deployment. Even if such individuals exist, transitioning them into specialised legal roles would require retraining, reallocation, and time — commodities the system does not have in abundance.
Second, the nature of modern crime — financial fraud, cybercrime, transnational networks — demands specialised legal literacy that goes beyond traditional policing experience. The assumption that such expertise can be organically cultivated within the force, without external input, is optimistic at best.
Operational Realities
The integration of legal professionals into the police is not merely symbolic. It entails logistical commitments: structured roles, transport facilities, investigative authority frameworks, and coordination protocols with prosecutors and courts.
Critics have pointed to these requirements — vehicles, administrative support, and rank equivalence — as evidence of bureaucratic excess. Yet these are standard operational necessities in any professionalised policing environment.
If the objective is to reduce case backlog and improve conviction integrity, then under-resourcing such a reform would be self-defeating.
Expanding the Police Horizon
More broadly, the initiative signals an attempt to recalibrate the identity of the Sri Lankan Police — from a reactive enforcement body to a legally informed investigative institution.
Embedding lawyers within the force could significantly reduce procedural errors, improve the quality of indictments, and shorten the time between arrest and prosecution. It also introduces an internal system of legal accountability, where investigative decisions are scrutinised in real time rather than retrospectively in court.
This is not dilution of policing — it is professionalisation.
The Politics of Criticism
Dharmapala’s intervention, however, appears less grounded in institutional analysis and more reflective of a broader pattern of opposition to NPP-led reforms. His suggestion that proximity to legal professionals — “shaking hands with President’s Counsel,” as critics have mockingly paraphrased — confers sufficient insight into police legal operations, has been met with scepticism in Colombo’s legal circles.
The more pressing question remains: what recent, practical engagement does he have with the evolving demands of policing in a digital, legally complex era?
Policing today requires fluency not only in enforcement, but in law, technology, and procedure. The days of compartmentalised roles are rapidly fading.
A Necessary Shift
Ultimately, the recruitment of 100 lawyers into the police is less about numbers and more about direction. It reflects an acknowledgment that Sri Lanka’s justice system cannot be repaired through incremental adjustments alone.
External expertise is not a threat to institutional integrity — it is often the catalyst for reform.
Whether the initiative succeeds will depend on execution: clear mandates, adequate training, and insulation from political interference. But dismissing it outright, without engaging with its structural rationale, risks reducing a substantive policy debate to performative criticism.
For a country grappling with judicial delays and public distrust, the question is not whether the police should become more legally sophisticated — but how quickly it can afford not to.