President Anura Dissanayake, addressing a rally in Katukurunda yesterday, made a controversial statement regarding the security provided to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. He remarked, “If Mahinda Rajapaksa complains that the number of security guards he has received is not enough, the existing security will be removed.” This statement reflects poorly on the decorum expected of a sitting President and reveals a concerning disregard for the responsibilities associated with the office.
As the leader of the National People’s Power (NPP) movement, also known as the “Compass,” President Anura seems to have overlooked the gravity of his current role. The Presidency is a position of immense responsibility, requiring decisions to be made with fairness and integrity—not as acts of political vengeance or retribution.
The determination of security arrangements for former President Mahinda Rajapaksa should rest solely with security experts, who are best equipped to assess the risks and decide the adequacy of protection. Any move to reduce or revoke his security based on personal or political grievances would be malicious and an abuse of power. Such actions could be perceived as direct political retaliation, which is unbecoming of a leader tasked with upholding democratic values and the rule of law.
President Anura must recognize that his authority as President does not grant him unlimited powers to arbitrarily alter security measures for former Presidents. This role requires a deep understanding of the rationale behind such provisions, which are designed to ensure the safety of individuals who have held the highest office, particularly in volatile environments.
Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa is widely credited for his pivotal role in ending the LTTE’s decades-long reign of terror, which wreaked havoc on the nation. His leadership during this critical period has earned him both admiration and animosity—particularly from those aligned with the defeated Tamil Eelam cause and other adversaries. At 79 years old, his security remains a pressing concern, especially given historical parallels such as the assassination of Lord Louis Mountbatten by IRA terrorists at the same age in 1979.
In societies plagued by terrorism, organized crime, and drug trafficking, a robust security framework for former leaders is crucial. Ensuring the safety of retired Presidents who have taken decisive actions against such threats is vital for encouraging future leaders to confront these issues without fear for their personal safety. Even though terrorism may no longer be an immediate concern, the presence of organized crime and drug cartels still poses significant risks.
If a former President who spearheaded efforts to eliminate terrorism is left vulnerable in retirement, it sends a chilling message to future Presidents. It could deter them from taking bold steps against the underworld and similar menaces, knowing that their own safety might be compromised after leaving office.
President Anura must exercise caution and refrain from making statements that undermine the principles of security and justice. As President, he carries the responsibility to lead with impartiality and ensure that decisions are made based on necessity and expertise, not personal spite or political vendettas.
