There is much chatter about the level of protection afforded to Presidents and former Heads of State in Sri Lanka. Most question why Sri Lankan political leaders need any protection at all. ‘There is no war, so what’s the need?’ many questions. Sri Lankans often draw parallels to how some leaders of European nations travel and use public transport, seemingly without massive motorcades. What they fail to recognise is that, even in such countries, when protection is deemed necessary, it is offered and, in most cases, remains low profile so as not to attract unwarranted attention to the ‘asset’ the protective detail is trying to protect. For all Heads of State, there is a protection detail, seldom visible and overbearing like we are used to seeing in Sri Lanka in the past. Then again, Sri Lanka’s domestic security situation in the past was anything but normal. It is tragic that Sri Lankans, though exposed to the horrors of conflict and terrorism, feel this way. However, their perception is due to decades of politicisation of the security apparatus, a culture of impunity and the exorbitant expenditure flaunted by leaders in the past. Perceptions aside, a state cannot simply not protect their leadership, be it past or present. Such protection is an extension of the protection of the State and is not a matter which should be governed by emotions or public opinion. The State in the exercise of its duties to protect the State and by extension the population, must protect the leadership.

Sri Lankans who seek good governance, must also realise that good governance includes security and safety of the pillars of power and the governance structures. Sri Lanka is not, despite the wants of some, an anarchy, where mob-rule is at play. The island nation, even though bruised by corruption, economic downturns and political upheavals, is a functioning democracy. The public and the polity must not mistake revenge for justice. If the nation wants to prosecute former leaders for crimes, corruption and poor governance, then the process to do so is defined in law, and the State and public must act within such boundaries. When it comes to security, of persons and leaders, politics should not play a part in the process in defining the need for security. Threats to these individuals must be assessed periodically and security measures calibrated based upon the current state of affairs of the domestic situation, and at times the state of affairs of the world.

When it entails the safety and security of former Heads of State, senior State officials, officers of the Judiciary and security services, the State can and should put in place measures to ensure that such security measures – security personnel are not misused by the ‘principle’ or ‘executive’. The protective services which are provided must not act beyond the law and should not become a ‘private army’ of the protectee. That is a matter of professional conduct and close regulations of such service, and not an extension of politics.

Globally, when gauging the security situation of an individual or group, assessments are done to understand vulnerabilities; and to identify threats, be they from terrorism to criminal acts or even political opponents. Many who require protection are often public figures, like former Presidents, Prime Ministers, senior State officials, diplomats or even corporate leaders, whose wellbeing can impact not just their personal lives but also the Government’s reputation and value. In providing security, there needs to be a high degree of trust and confidence: A protectee’s ability to trust and follow instructions from their protection team is crucial for their safety, especially during critical moments. There is also a need to consider varying needs and dependent levels of protection required, and the methods used are adapted to the specific needs and personality of the principal.

Sri Lanka has in the past, had ad hoc arrangements with certain ministries and agencies tasked to handle close protection of key individuals. Moving forward, Sri Lanka should formulate a well-crafted Protective Services Policy, and let security professionals make the call on if an individual needs protection based on a threat assessment, and how to provide protection to such individuals.