In many contexts, the labels ‘Very Important Persons (VIPs)’ and ‘Very Very Important Persons (VVIPs)’ no longer have the same recognition that they had been assigned in the past. In the Sri Lankan context, especially following last year’s (2022) aragalaya movement (public movement to overthrow the former Government led by then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa), such titles are being frowned upon, because in many cases, those labels are used by politicians or associates of politicians. While the culture of VIPs and VVIPs continues, who deserves special treatment as VIPs or VVIPs remains a question.
This week, it was reported that certain individuals are misusing public resources to present themselves as VIPs, by misusing Police security that they have been given, taking into account various security threats to their lives. The Police has already identified this trend, and Police Spokesperson and Senior Superintendent of Police, attorney Nihal Thalduwa has acknowledged that such conduct could be harmful to those who are in danger as well as to the Police officers who have been deployed for the former’s security. The necessary instructions have been issued to both those who have obtained Police security and the Police officers who have been assigned such duties.
Self proclaimed VIPs who are trying to establish or maintain a social status at the expense of Police officers has become a social issue. However, providing Police security for individuals itself has attracted controversy in the recent past because of the high number of Police officers deployed for such duties, who could have instead been used for other, more useful activities if the provision of Police security for individuals’ safety was regulated further to avert it being misused. In this era of reforms, reforms aimed at utilising the resource strapped Police Department’s resources effectively should be a priority.
As per the Police, the existing procedure through which Police security is provided for individuals, involves an assessment which looks at the nature and level of security threats such a person faces. The first step that the Police can take in this regard is to tighten the requirements one must fulfill to be eligible for such security. At the same time, there should be emphasis on the resources spent by the Police for individuals’ security. Each person should be informed of how much labour, time and money the Police spends, and such security should be amended periodically. For example, at first, such security should be provided only for a certain period of time, and the extension of security should be based on a review of the security threats that they face at the time of the review. As a measure to prevent the misuse of Police security, if the Police do not see adequate reasons to continue security, security should be removed or reduced. If the security seeker demands prolonged service, they could be provided with paid security, which would help the Police force cover their costs at the very least and instill a sense of responsibility in the service seekers.
In addition, measures such as taking actions against those who present false or exaggerated information to obtain security at the first instance or to extend security could be considered. A fine would serve as a deterrent. It would protect not only the Police’s time, money and labour, but also its dignity. Hereafter, how Police officers who have been deployed for individuals’ security are treated should be recorded and reviewed as a general practice, and individuals should be informed of this at the time of requesting Police security. If Police officers are misused or are mistreated, that should be a ground for actions against security seekers. In a context where many who receive Police security are in powerful positions, an effective and confidential system should be in place for Police officers to lodge complaints regarding such matters.
Every citizen has a right to obtain Police security. However, the above-said incident is proof that while ensuring that right, there is also a need to ensure that the right is enjoyed by those who are truly in need of it. This service costs the country a considerable amount of public funds, and it should not be misused, and should instead be valued.