• 15,000 in remand as Govt. Analyst backlog deepens
• Over 50% of backlog linked to drug cases
• Nearly 2,000 pending cyber forensic cases
• Justice Ministry races to recruit staff amid fiscal constraints

The Government Analyst’s Department has been grappling with a severe staff shortage, resulting in significant delays and practical difficulties in improving the department’s performance.

According to the Auditor General’s report for the 2024 financial year, the Auditor General was informed that nearly 64% of the total number of case materials submitted had been analysed during the year. However, almost one-third of the approved staff positions in the department remained vacant.

As a result, it was noted that improving performance was practically difficult given the large number of vacancies, and that higher levels of efficiency could be achieved if the staff shortages were addressed.

The Sunday Morning reliably learns that the department recently recruited 22 assistant Government analysts and 22 personnel specifically for examining questioned documents, and that these recruitments took place less than a month prior to the current discussions on new recruitments.

A massive backlog currently exists because the workforce did not increase proportionately over a five-year period, despite a large volume of incoming cases. Furthermore, it is understood that over 50% of the current backlog is strictly attributed to drug cases.

Minister of Justice and National Integration Harshana Nanayakkara, speaking to The Sunday Morning, said that a recruitment drive was currently underway to clear the massive backlog of cases at the Government Analyst’s Department. 

The department serves as the central scientific laboratory for the national criminal justice system, and the speed at which it processes physical and digital evidence directly impacts the efficiency of courts across the country. Addressing the severe delays requires structural administrative changes and an immediate influx of human resources.

“This did not happen overnight. It would have taken at least 5–10 years for this backlog to accumulate to this extent. When staff members leave and are not replaced through timely recruitment, the volume of pending cases naturally increases. Therefore, I believe we are dealing with a problem that has been compounding for 10–15 years,” Minister Nanayakkara said.

The human cost of institutional delays

The reality of thousands of individuals languishing in remand custody highlights a critical procedural bottleneck within the criminal justice framework. 

When law enforcement agencies apprehend suspects, particularly under legislation governing narcotics and illicit firearms, the physical evidence must undergo rigorous scientific testing to establish fundamental facts required for prosecution. For instance, in drug-related offences under the Poisons, Opium, and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, the precise chemical composition, purity level, and exact weight of the confiscated narcotics dictate the severity of the charges filed against the suspect.

In Sri Lanka, drug possession exceeding specific statutory thresholds transforms a bailable offence into a non-bailable offence that must be tried in the High Court. These scientific determinations made by the Government Analyst distinguish between minor possession charges and severe trafficking offences, which carry significantly heavier judicial penalties. Until the official scientific reports are finalised and submitted to the relevant judicial authorities, magistrates lack the jurisdiction to grant bail and suspects are routinely kept in remand facilities.

“The most pressing problem is that there are 15,000 individuals in remand custody due to these delays. From 2020 to the present, the caseload has essentially doubled. The staff shrank while the workload multiplied. The immediate necessity is to expedite these pending cases, and that is where my primary focus lies. Once the backlog is addressed, we can then look into upgrading cyber forensics and other related technological infrastructure. However, right now, the focus must remain on the immediate backlog,” Nanayakkara noted.

These delays have caused severe prison overcrowding, placing immense logistical and financial strain on the Department of Prisons and impacting overall inmate welfare. Consequently, the Ministry of Justice is prioritising immediate recruitment to resolve critical personnel shortages before expanding technological capabilities, ensuring the laboratory can effectively manage the national caseload.

Fiscal constraints and hurdles

“We are in the process of recruiting another 50 individuals. That should effectively solve the manpower deficit. I cannot demand action plans from the department without first providing it with the necessary human resources. Once the staffing issue is fully resolved, which should definitely be before the end of March, I will be in a position to set clear objectives. By the end of March or the beginning of April, they will be given specific targets and should begin disposing of cases at a much faster rate,” Nanayakkara affirmed. 

The challenge of staffing a highly specialised scientific department is further complicated by strict national fiscal policies. The Government operates under rigid budgetary constraints that limit public sector compensation, making it exceptionally difficult to compete with the private sector for top-tier technical talent.

“The Government cannot afford to increase salaries as the necessary funds are simply not available. The Public Financial Management Act No.44 of 2024 restricts the country’s spending to 13% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Consequently, all sectors are experiencing similar financial constraints. We are unable to retain or attract top talent because of these limitations. Currently, only those who are deeply committed to serving the country are willing to work for the public sector salaries offered,” Nanayakkara explained.

The Public Financial Management Act imposes rigid ceilings on State expenditure relative to the GDP, severely restricting adjustments to public sector salaries. Consequently, State institutions cannot compete with the vastly superior compensation offered by the private sector for specialised cybersecurity and data recovery experts. This recruitment challenge heavily restricts the State’s capacity to manage the unprecedented volume of digital evidence now seized in almost every major criminal investigation.

The Sunday Morning also reliably learns that the Digital and Computer Forensic Section currently operates with only five personnel, but requires at least 12 to manage the monthly influx of about 30 cases and clear the existing backlog of nearly 2,000 digital forensic cases. The digital forensics lab originally commenced operations in 2016 with four recruits, but case volumes quickly exceeded their processing capacity. 

Recruitment efforts have failed twice because individuals with specialised computer science degrees are generally unwilling to accept the Government salary scale. Despite these human resource challenges, funding for forensic equipment is adequately provided by the Government, meaning the primary bottleneck causing the backlog is a severe lack of human resources.

The complexities of digital forensics

The operational infrastructure required to conduct authorised digital extractions is both complex and financially demanding. The State must continually invest in sophisticated software to keep pace with the rapid advancements in consumer electronics and mobile operating systems.

It is reliably understood that in the realm of criminal investigations involving digital devices, there are three primary institutions handling digital forensic court orders in the country. These are the Government Analyst’s laboratory, the University of Colombo, and Sri Lanka Computer Emergency Readiness Team (Sri Lanka CERT). 

Infrastructure is consistently updated, with annual tool licences costing approximately Rs. 4 million. If a tool fails to support newer devices, it is replaced the following year. Standard commercial forensic tools are strictly used to ensure the extracted data remains admissible in court, and these specialised extraction tools are sold exclusively to law enforcement entities and undergo continuous internal testing.

The specific methods utilised to retrieve data depend heavily on the physical condition and security settings of the seized hardware. The proliferation of encrypted communication platforms has significantly altered the landscape of modern criminal investigations.

When extracting encrypted data from messaging applications during criminal investigations, The Sunday Morning reliably learns that the process depends entirely on the physical status of the device. If a mobile phone is unlocked, the chat data can be accessed directly. If the phone is locked, the department possesses forensic extraction tools capable of bypassing the lock on certain phone models. For models where bypassing the lock is not possible, investigators must request the password from the relevant party to unlock the device and extract the data.

The technical complexities of retrieving data from modern electronics require a meticulous approach to preservation and analysis. When law enforcement agencies seize a mobile phone, a computer, or any digital storage medium, the primary objective is to extract the necessary information without altering the original binary structure. This process relies heavily on specialised hardware such as write blockers, which prevent any accidental data modification during the copying phase.

Furthermore, forensic analysts utilise cryptographic hash functions to generate a unique digital fingerprint for the seized files. As communication technologies evolve, transnational organised crime networks increasingly rely on advanced messaging platforms to coordinate illicit activities across international borders. 

These protocols present significant hurdles for investigators, shifting the focus of digital investigations towards device-level extraction. This operational reality underscores the absolute necessity for continuous investment in specialised software and hardware tools capable of navigating the complex security architectures of modern mobile operating systems.

Modernising the legal framework

Former Minister of Justice Ali Sabry, PC detailed the foundational policies established to address these modern investigative challenges and bridge the technological divide between the State and criminal enterprises.

“When we began conceptualising the organised crime framework, one of the principal concerns was the widening gap between sophisticated criminal networks and the State’s evidentiary capacity. Investigations were often weakened by delays in digital forensics, inadequate chain of custody protocols, and limited coordination between investigators, prosecutors, and the Government Analyst’s Department. The intention was to introduce clearer statutory standards for electronic evidence, strengthen admissibility thresholds, and ensure that forensic outputs could withstand constitutional scrutiny while expediting prosecutions,” Sabry said.

The modernisation of the legal framework surrounding electronic evidence is a critical component of adapting the justice system to the realities of the modern era. Historically, evidentiary rules were designed around physical documents and tangible items, leaving legal ambiguities when applied to digital formats such as emails, text messages, and geolocation data. 

Establishing clear statutory standards ensures that digital evidence is collected, stored, and analysed in a manner that respects procedural fairness and constitutional rights. This legal clarity provides investigators and prosecutors with the confidence to pursue complex cases relying on digital footprints, knowing that the evidence will meet the rigorous thresholds required for admissibility in a trial setting.

“Legislation alone cannot transform outcomes. While the policy direction recognised the need for specialised cyber forensic units, accredited laboratories, and continuous professional development for analysts, implementation has been uneven. The legal architecture anticipated significant investment in technology, training, and institutional independence. Without sustained budgetary support, recruitment of highly skilled personnel, and internationally benchmarked accreditation processes, even well-designed laws struggle to deliver results in court,” Sabry explained.

Independent laboratory accreditation is crucial to assure the Judiciary that forensic findings meet international standards. Without rigorous quality management and regular proficiency testing, defence attorneys can easily challenge scientific reliability, risking the dismissal of crucial evidence. Sustained funding and continuous training are therefore essential to uphold scientific integrity and prevent the collapse of complex prosecutions.

Balancing privacy with law enforcement

“The original drafting discussions did anticipate the growing prevalence of encrypted communication platforms. The objective was never to undermine privacy but to establish lawful, proportionate access mechanisms subject to strict judicial oversight. Courts were expected to develop jurisprudence balancing necessity, proportionality, and procedural safeguards, supported by expert testimony explaining evolving technological realities. Judicial education and technical literacy were always viewed as essential components of the reform process,” Sabry observed. 

The rapid advancement of communication technology requires legal professionals to maintain a working knowledge of technical concepts, such as forensic extraction and cloud computing, to effectively evaluate digital evidence. Enhancing judicial technical literacy ensures courts can properly balance law enforcement access requests with constitutional privacy protections. Furthermore, the traditional sequential model of completing Police inquiries before involving prosecutors often leads to critical procedural errors in cases involving complex data.

“If cases are failing due to compromised or poorly handled digital evidence, the response must be both institutional and procedural. Immediate priorities would include standardised digital evidence handling protocols, independent accreditation of forensic processes, early involvement of prosecutors during investigations, and investment in secure digital evidence management systems. Equally important is insulating forensic institutions from operational pressures so that their scientific integrity remains beyond reproach,” Sabry noted.

Early involvement of prosecutors allows legal experts to guide the investigative strategy from the outset, ensuring that digital devices are seized under the correct legal authority and that the subsequent analysis is aligned with the specific elements of the alleged crime. This collaborative approach minimises the risk of evidence exclusion and strengthens the overall structural integrity of the legal proceedings. 

Furthermore, investing in secure management systems ensures that the massive volumes of data extracted from modern devices are stored safely, maintaining a verifiable chain of custody from the moment of seizure to the final presentation in court. A secure chain of custody is paramount, as any break in the documented history of the evidence can render it inadmissible, regardless of its probative value.

“A sustainable framework must recognise that privacy and effective law enforcement are not mutually exclusive. The key lies in narrowly tailored legal powers, transparent judicial authorisation, and robust oversight mechanisms. Public confidence depends on ensuring that investigative tools are used only where strictly necessary, while at the same time equipping law enforcement with the lawful means required to address organised crime that increasingly operates in encrypted and transnational environments,” Sabry noted.

Resolving the crisis at the Government Analyst’s Department remains a fundamental prerequisite for the effective administration of justice. The ongoing recruitment drives are a necessary first step, but they must be accompanied by sustainable administrative reforms and continuous technological investments to prevent future bottlenecks.

“I remain of the view that strengthening forensic science, particularly within the Government Analyst’s Department, is central to restoring confidence in the criminal justice system. Legislative reform must move in tandem with institutional capacity building if we are to deliver credible, fair, and timely justice,” Sabry stressed.

The Government Analyst’s Department could not be reached for comment regarding its capacity gaps in staff, technology, and infrastructure.