Since the announcement by Minister of Public Security Ananda Wijepala in Parliament that the State coffers would save over a billion rupees by withdrawing the security provided by the tri-forces to former presidents and VIPs, questions have arisen as to the exact figures of the savings, especially by reassigning VIP security personnel to other tasks.
Upon inquiring into the monies spent to maintain a large VIP security division, Ministry of Defence Spokesperson Col. Nalin Herath informed The Sunday Morning that personnel assigned to VIP security were accorded a motivation allowance which amounted to one-third of their salary. Further to that, overhead costs which include accommodation, food, and transport expenses will also be saved.
Govt. position
In a special statement delivered to Parliament on 17 December 2024, Wijepala revealed that over the course of 2024, the Government had spent more than Rs. 1.4 billion in taxpayer funds to provide security for former presidents, including expenditures of Rs. 328 million for military personnel and Rs. 327 million for Police officers.
He announced that from the following week the security provided to these individuals would be reassessed. The tri-forces personnel assigned to former leaders will be removed and security will be the sole responsibility of the Police, with reassessments conducted every six months to determine the level of protection required.
According to the Minister, the Government anticipates saving at least Rs. 1.2 billion annually by implementing this new arrangement. Wijepala emphasised that this move was in response to recommendations from the committee led by retired Supreme Court Justice K.T. Chitrasiri, which had been tasked with reviewing the allowances, perks, and privileges provided to former heads of state.
The committee report suggested that security for former presidents should be based on a proper threat assessment and that unnecessary personnel should be removed.
The security reductions have already been implemented for a number of former leaders, including Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR), Maithripala Sirisena, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Ranil Wickremesinghe, and Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, as well as former First Lady Hema Premadasa. According to figures disclosed by the Government, security costs for each individual leader varies.
For instance, MR, the former President with the highest number of security personnel, had received protection from 60 Police officers and 228 tri-forces personnel, with the total cost of his security amounting to Rs. 710 million. On the other hand, former President Sirisena’s security had cost Rs. 207 million, with a smaller allocation of tri-forces and Police officers, Wijepala informed Parliament.
The Government’s intent, according to Wijepala, is not to reduce security but to ensure that it is based on the level of threat posed to each individual. He pointed out that security personnel and funds would be allocated efficiently without overcommitting resources to individuals who did not face significant risks.
The new system
Following the withdrawal of the tri-forces from presidential security, Police Spokesperson Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Buddhika Manatunga told The Sunday Morning that in the past, over 3,000 Police officers had been allocated for the security of former presidents. He noted that this number had significantly decreased.
“We have now allocated a maximum of 60 Police officers for each of the former presidents and at this time, all former presidents have the same number of security personnel. If any former president informs us of a threat, we will reassess the security and increase the number if necessary,” he said.
Further discussing the status of security provided to ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs), he said: “No security personnel have been allocated for the safety of ministers and MPs at this time.”
Manatunga asserted that no minister or MP had made any request based on verifiable threats, which was the reason no security had been allocated through the Ministerial Security Division.
When asked how the system worked, he replied: “We have allocated different staff for each of the former presidents. For example, Mahinda Rajapaksa has been allotted Ex-President’s Security Division-5 (Ex-PSD-5) while Kumaratunga has been allotted Ex-PSD-4. Likewise, Sirisena and Gotabaya Rajapaksa have been allotted Ex-PSD-6 and Ex-PSD-7, respectively. In a few months, we will perform another threat assessment and if we can confirm the veracity of a threat we will increase security,” he said.
‘Security is not a privilege’
While Wijepala has defended the reduction of security as a cost-saving measure, Spokesperson for former President Mahinda Rajapaksa Raveendra Manoj Gamage strongly opposed the Government’s stance on the security cuts, stressing that the security of individuals, especially those who had served the country in significant capacities, should never be compromised.
“The biggest mistake is to treat security as a privilege. Security for a person depends entirely on the threat they face, not on their status. The decision to allocate security for Mahinda Rajapaksa was made by the Cabinet based on a comprehensive threat assessment,” Gamage asserted, speaking to The Sunday Morning.
He argued that former President MR remained under constant threat due to his pivotal role in defeating the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Gamage pointed out that some groups in Sri Lanka continued to view LTTE Leader Velupillai Prabhakaran as a hero and that the former President was at risk of being targeted by those who still held such views.
“Mahinda Rajapaksa is under threat because he defeated the LTTE and some people, even educated ones, are claiming that Prabhakaran is a god. If he were to be killed, the person responsible for his death would be hailed as a hero by these individuals. The threat to Mahinda Rajapaksa will never diminish,” Gamage said.
He also criticised the allocation of security resources to underworld figures, alleging that notorious criminals had been afforded State protection while former leaders faced security reductions.
However, Manatunga refuted the allegation. “Underworld figures are provided security only based on a court order. When a person has been arrested and has to be produced in court, they are under Police custody and it is our priority and responsibility to ensure they are protected,” he said.
He also claimed that the Police would never provide protection to underworld kingpins if they operated under bail conditions unless there was a court order.
“If the court wants to make an order for their protection, then we will make our arguments against it. However, if the court has decreed that the suspect must be protected, then we will abide by it,” he said.
The savings
The Government’s cost-saving measures are aimed at reducing unnecessary expenditure and reallocating resources to where they are most needed. According to Ministry of Defence Spokesperson Col. Herath, the decision to reduce security for certain former leaders is also part of a broader effort to optimise Government spending.
Col. Herath explained that the Government incurred significant costs in maintaining military personnel assigned to VIP security. “The primary role of the military is to engage with national security. VIP security is beyond this primary role. When they perform other roles it generates an extra cost, so we removed the military security from VIPs after performing a proper assessment,” he said.
He shared that military personnel assigned to VIP security were accorded a motivation allowance amounting to one-third of their salary. Col. Herath also noted that additional costs included expenses for vehicles, fuel, accommodation, and food.
By reassigning personnel and reducing the number of security officers, the Government expects to save millions of rupees that can be redirected to other areas. Col. Herath noted that when the military personnel assigned to VIP security were no longer required for specific assignments, money was saved on their allowances and logistical costs.
The savings from reduced security provisions are expected to be substantial. Col. Herath emphasised that the funds saved would be reutilised in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Public Security, and expenses incurred would be within the budgets of the ministries.
For further information on how funds will be reallocated, The Sunday Morning contacted Deputy Minister of Defence Maj. Gen. Aruna Jayasekara, who informed that following the withdrawal of tri-forces security, the Ministry of Public Security would henceforth deal with matters relating to presidential security.
When contacted by The Sunday Morning, Minister of Public Security Wijepala declined to comment on the matter.
Security vs. saving costs
The ongoing debate over the reduction of security for former leaders reflects the delicate balance that governments must strike between protecting individuals at risk and managing public funds efficiently. While the Government’s decision to reduce security costs is aimed at fiscal responsibility, it also raises important questions about how security resources should be allocated.
On one hand, the Government argues that reducing unnecessary security measures can free up funds for other critical areas such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. On the other hand, critics assert that reducing security for former leaders who face real and significant threats undermines the safety of those who have served the country at the highest levels.
Gamage raised concerns about the allocation of security to underworld figures, pointing out that some criminals had been given State protection while former leaders were left vulnerable.
“Ask them why underworld kingpins are given such security. Doesn’t the Government also incur costs for these individuals? Do they not need food or transportation?” he questioned.
Manatunga explained that no proper threat assessment had been conducted in the past. “Under former governments, the allocation of security staff was performed only based on threats faced during war times. This has changed. We now perform proper threat assessments based on credible information,” he said.
When asked who performed the threat assessment, Manatunga said: “The assessment is performed by specialists who base their judgement on intelligence reports. It is performed by a committee for public security appointed by the Ministry of Public Security.”