By: Staff Writer
November 17, Colombo (LNW): The government’s proposal to establish a separate Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has sparked significant opposition from within the Attorney General’s Department, raising questions about its potential impact on judicial efficiency and the department’s operational integrity.
At a special general meeting on November 14, 2025, the Legal Officers’ Association of the Attorney General’s Department formally adopted a resolution opposing the move. While the association expressed support for initiatives aimed at improving independence, transparency, and efficiency, it strongly rejected the creation of a separate prosecutorial office.
The proposed DPP office is intended to segregate the prosecutorial function from the broader Attorney General’s Department, with the stated goal of enhancing the independence and impartiality of criminal prosecutions and expediting the administration of justice. Proponents argue that a standalone office would allow prosecutors to operate free from administrative constraints and bureaucratic delays.
However, the association contends that no empirical evidence or rigorous analysis has been presented to demonstrate that such separation would achieve these objectives. Members cautioned that a fragmented structure could instead undermine the department’s independence, dilute professional standards, and introduce operational inefficiencies.
“Independence and transparency must not be limited solely to prosecutions; they must encompass all functions of the Attorney General’s Department, including civil litigation and advisory roles,” the resolution emphasized. By carving out only the prosecutorial arm, critics argue, the government risks creating a dual structure where internal coordination breaks down, and the department’s holistic capacity to advise the state is weakened.
Legal experts suggest that such a separation could also have broader implications for the judiciary. A divided prosecution service may lead to inconsistent legal interpretations, delays in case preparation, and potential conflicts between the newly formed DPP office and the Attorney General’s Department. These challenges could inadvertently slow the criminal justice process rather than accelerate it, contradicting the reform’s intended purpose.
The association described the move as “unreasonable, arbitrary, devoid of any rational basis or merit, and ultimately counterproductive,” while reaffirming its willingness to support internal reforms aimed at strengthening departmental efficiency and accountability.
Observers note that a careful balance must be maintained between enhancing prosecutorial independence and preserving the unified strength of the Attorney General’s Department. Separating the two could create parallel hierarchies, increase administrative costs, and complicate coordination with law enforcement and the courts, factors that may weaken overall judicial effectiveness.
As the debate continues, the government faces a critical choice: implement structural reform without sufficient empirical justification, risking operational disruption, or pursue internal reforms within the Attorney General’s Department that enhance independence and efficiency while maintaining its established professional standards.
