This policy brief by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) builds upon the organization’s previous work examining longstanding debates on reforming the Attorney-General’s Department of Sri Lanka. These debates have intensified in recent years amid growing criticism regarding the allegations of politicisation of the department and the real and perceived conflicts of interest, particularly in relation to its prosecutorial functions. These criticisms are located within the broader structural concerns regarding Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system. This has created a multicursal maze of reform – comprising a complex maze of reform options, with multiple intersecting and non-linear pathways that must be carefully navigated to ensure an equitable and efficient legal system.
The National People’s Power (NPP) government acknowledged some of these concerns, and, in its election manifesto, promised to establish an independent Office of the Public Prosecutor upon coming into power.1 The proposed reform was intended to reduce delays in criminal proceedings, strengthen institutional independence and transparency, and restore public confidence in Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system.2 In early 2025, the NPP-government appointed a committee of technical experts to examine and report on introducing new legislation to establish such an office and to recommend amendments to existing laws where necessary.3 To date, however, the committee has not engaged with the public, and limited information is available regarding its progress.
At the same time, resistance to reform has emerged from within the Attorney-General’s Department, where proposals to create a separate prosecutorial authority have been opposed in favour of publicly unspecified internal reforms aimed at strengthening the Department’s existing functions.4 Broader governance challenges and competing national priorities, such as the necessity of rebuilding after Cyclone Ditwah, have also highlighted the lack of prioritization of this specific reform agenda, pushing it to the backseat. Nonetheless, recent criticism and public protests directed at the current Attorney-General since 2025 have renewed calls for an independent prosecution system as part of wider efforts to strengthen and restore the rule of law in Sri Lanka.
Against this backdrop, this policy brief reassesses the case for reforming Sri Lanka’s prosecutorial framework. The paper suggests core principles which should underpin this initiative, in an effort to avoid past mistakes and prevent further politicization of the Attorney-General’s Department. It examines the feasibility of establishing an independent Office of the Public Prosecutor; explores options for its legal and structural foundations, design choice, and operationalisation; and acknowledges the complexities and challenges involved. The brief draws on multiple stakeholder perspectives from across the country including law students, lawyers, academics, members of parliament, activists and policymakers and serves as a roadmap raising key questions and policy considerations for those engaged in the ongoing reform process. The policy brief begins by briefly outlining the historical evolution of the Attorney-General’s Office and its current role in Sri Lanka, highlighting its inherent conflicts of interest. It then reviews past calls for reform of the Attorney-General’s Department from various actors within and outside Sri Lanka, highlighting key concerns. Thereafter the policy brief analyses international standards and best practices on public prosecution and explores approaches from comparative jurisdictions to enhance independence of prosecutorial authorities. Drawing on these experiences, lessons, both in terms of positive models to emulate as well as negative experiences to avoid, are identified for Sri Lanka. The policy brief concludes by highlighting key principles which should be considered when designing a prosecutorial body and by discussing available options for Sri Lanka which would broadly fall within these principles.