By Mahil Dole –

Mahil Dole

The police service, for some, is a profession. For others, it is a calling. For a few, it becomes a legacy carried across generations. In my case, it is all three. My great-grandfather, my grandfather, my father, and I have each served in this institution with dignity, discipline, and a deep sense of duty. We did not merely wear the uniform we believed in what it represented: fairness, order, and public trust.

It is from this vantage point that the recent emergence of a letter by a senior police officer, outlining internal grievances within the service, must be understood. This is not an isolated complaint, nor is it an act of indiscipline. It is, in essence, a signal an internal warning that the institution is experiencing strain at a structural level.

Such moments in institutional life are critical. They test whether systems are capable of self-correction or whether they drift further into dysfunction through inaction.

The issues highlighted unfair administrative practices, perceived inconsistencies in transfers and promotions, external interference, excessive workload, and declining morale are not new to observers of policing in Sri Lanka. What is new is the manner in which these concerns have surfaced: formally, candidly, and now publicly.

This transition from internal concern to public discourse indicates that conventional mechanisms of redress may no longer be seen as effective. When officers begin to lose confidence in internal systems, the consequences extend beyond administrative inconvenience. They begin to affect discipline, operational coherence, and ultimately, public confidence in law enforcement.

At this juncture, the reality must be confronted directly:

The lid has been blown. The pressure is no longer contained. The system is now overflowing.

What was once discussed in whispers has now surfaced in the open. This is not a moment for denial, it is a moment for decision. Will the hierarchy choose to ignore, hoping the pressure subsides? Or will it act decisively to contain, correct, and restore?

Because containment without correction is temporary. And silence, at this stage, will only deepen the crisis. It must therefore be stated without ambiguity: the situation has reached a critical point.

Institutional decline rarely occurs abruptly. It is gradual, often imperceptible at first. It begins with small compromises on fairness, on professionalism, on independence. Over time, these accumulate, creating an environment where morale weakens, decision-making becomes inconsistent, and external pressures find space to influence internal processes.

In such an environment, silence becomes part of the problem.

The officer who chose to articulate these concerns has, perhaps unintentionally, performed a service to the institution. By bringing these issues into the open, he has created an opportunity an opportunity that must not be squandered.

However, acknowledging the problem is only the first step. What is required now is not discussion alone, but response.

The damage, in many respects, has already been done. Morale within sections of the service is strained. Perceptions of fairness have been questioned. The credibility of internal processes has been challenged. These are not conditions that can be reversed through statements or assurances. They require deliberate, structured, and sustained corrective action.

Reform, in this context, must be both practical and principled.

First, there is an urgent need to restore confidence in administrative processes. Transfers and promotions must be governed by transparent, merit-based criteria, insulated from undue influence. Without this, perceptions of injustice will continue to erode morale.

Second, operational independence must be protected. Policing, by its very nature, requires decisions to be made on professional grounds. The intrusion of external or political influence into these spaces undermines both effectiveness and legitimacy.

Third, the welfare of officers must be addressed. Excessive workload, insufficient rest, and inadequate support systems do not merely affect individual well-being; they directly impact performance and judgment. A fatigued force cannot be an effective force.

Fourth, leadership accountability must be reinforced. Authority within a disciplined service carries with it a corresponding responsibility to ensure fairness, consistency, and integrity. Leadership must be visible not only in command, but in correction.

These are not reforms of convenience. They are reforms of necessity.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that institutions are not weakened by internal critique. On the contrary, the ability to confront shortcomings is a hallmark of institutional maturity. What weakens institutions is the failure to respond when warnings are ignored, when concerns are dismissed, and when opportunities for correction are allowed to pass.

The present moment must therefore be approached with urgency and clarity.

Better late than never is often said. In this instance, however, delay carries consequences. The longer corrective action is postponed, the deeper the erosion becomes, and the more difficult restoration will be.

For those of us who have inherited this institution across generations, the stakes are not abstract. We have seen the police service at its best disciplined, respected, and trusted. We also recognize the early signs of decline when they begin to emerge.

The responsibility now is collective. To acknowledge reality without defensiveness. To act with clarity and purpose. And to restore the institutional integrity that has been built over decades.

The police service does not belong to any one individual or generation. It is an institution held in trust passed down, protected, and strengthened over time.

The question that remains is straightforward, yet consequential: Will this moment be remembered as a warning that was ignored? Or as the point at which meaningful reform began?

The answer will not be found in words, but in action.

*Mahil Dole is a former senior law enforcement officer and national security analyst, with over four decades of experience in policing and intelligence, including serving as Head of Counter-Intelligence at the State Intelligence Service of Sri Lanka and a graduate of the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawai, USA.