The recent tabling of the Presidents’ Entitlements (Repeal) Bill in Parliament marks a significant shift in how the nation views benefits and privileges extended to former heads of State.
Minister of Justice Harshana Nanayakkara, speaking to The Sunday Morning, said the Government viewed politics as a public service, and as such, a former president did not require entitlements once their tenure ended.
“We consider politics as a social service. Moreover, this is a non-contributory situation. So we think it’s kind of unnecessary, and it’s a part of our election pledges as well. We are cancelling everything,” he said, adding that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake would also not enjoy these entitlements if the bill were to be enacted.
However, he affirmed that a president’s pension would remain.
“A president’s pension is protected by the Constitution and will not be removed,” he said, while noting that security details were not part of the bill and that security would continue to be provided to former presidents.
On Thursday (7), Minister Nanayakkara tabled in Parliament the Presidents’ Entitlements (Repeal) Bill, which seeks to remove all entitlements, such as allowances and housing, to former presidents or their widows.
The bill states: “Any residence provided to, or monthly allowance paid to a former president or the widow of a former president in terms of the provisions of Section 2 of the repealed act; monthly secretarial allowance paid to, and official transport and such other facilities provided to a former president or the widow of a former president in terms of the provisions of Section 3 of the repealed act; and monthly pension paid to the widow of a former president in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the repealed act, preceding the date of commencement of this act, shall no longer be provided with or paid to, on and after the date of commencement of this act.”
No exceptions?
Political scientist Professor Jayadeva Uyangoda offered a thoughtful perspective on the issue of Government support and entitlements for retired politicians, such as presidents, prime ministers, ministers, and Members of Parliament (MPs), while also emphasising fairness towards ordinary citizens facing similar challenges.
At the core of Prof. Uyangoda’s view is the belief that the public should not bear undue financial burdens to support retired politicians.
However, recognising the reality that some retired political leaders might find themselves without adequate resources to care for themselves or their families, he advocated a Government mechanism that would allow them to request assistance on a needs basis. Crucially, he highlighted the importance of this support being legally enacted and carefully monitored to prevent potential abuse.
“I don’t think the public should pay for that. That’s my personal view. I would prefer a situation where if retired politicians – whether they are presidents, ministers, prime ministers, or even MPs – have no means to support themselves and their families, any government has an arrangement to assist them on request. This should be legally enacted, because it can also be subjected to abuse,” he said.
Drawing from his own experience as a university servant facing high medical bills without any Government aid, Prof. Uyangoda stressed the need for an equitable system in which not only retired politicians but all citizens, regardless of status, could seek help from the Government if they lacked the means.
“I am a university servant. I am not well these days; my medical bill is very high. However, there is no arrangement for me to get any Government support. I have to depend on my relations or my family members. Therefore, I think that presidents should not be made an exception.
“Everybody else should also have the right to ask the Government to assist them. I would like to see a situation where former presidents, prime ministers, and MPs also have that facility, which would be available to all citizens,” he added.
Prof. Uyangoda argued against extravagant facilities or privileges being granted to any group, but supported reasonable assistance as a right accessible to all who genuinely needed it.
“That facility should be available to other citizens as well. If a president and prime minister can ask for it, then the normal man should be able to as well. But I am against these extravagant facilities being available to everybody.”
Turning to security provisions, he acknowledged that former heads of State required a reasonable degree of protection due to their public roles and potential threats. Nevertheless, he called for a fair and transparent assessment process managed by a designated Government body to ensure that security measures were justified and proportionate.
“Yes, there should be a reasonable degree of security and there should be a Government body to assess the security threats and then provide accordingly. There should not be special treatment for anybody, but rather a general set of principles on what grounds security should be provided.
“I have seen even retired presidents being accompanied by motorcades and security, and any retired Government servant or private citizen would wonder why these retired presidents or prime ministers are afforded this exception. Therefore, such allowances should be reasonable and justified. There should be some degree of a level playing field,” Prof. Uyangoda asserted.
Attorney-at-Law Dr. Gehan Gunatilleke, expressing his personal views on the matter, acknowledged existing international conventions and pointed to other countries as references for policy-making.
“How resource allocations are made to former heads of state is a matter of policy. In principle, former heads of state need to be given adequate security. What that looks like in terms of the number of personnel assigned should be determined by the relevant policymakers based on the advice of the security sector.
“With regard to other allocations such as financial allowances, some countries do give their former leaders certain allowances. For example, a Public Duty Costs Allowance is paid to former British prime ministers. Once again, the quantum should be determined by the appropriate decision-making authority.”
Opposition perspective
Meanwhile, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) insisted that the finances of a former president must be taken into account and assistance provided if needed.
“The necessary basics must be provided. The financial situation of a former president must be taken into consideration when deciding on whether to provide entitlements such as an allowance and housing,” SJB General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara told The Sunday Morning.
He asserted that security details of the former presidents must be maintained.
“Security must be provided. That is an essential requirement as some presidents may have security concerns due to their actions during their tenures. As a party, we have not decided on whether we will support the bill in Parliament or not. We are discussing the matter,” he said.
United National Party (UNP) stalwart Akila Viraj Kariyawasam said that while the party had not come to a conclusive stance on the proposed amendment bill, he personally was against stripping former presidents of their entitlements.
“As a president, a person has to face many challenges and make difficult decisions. The president does all this for the purpose of serving the people and the nation. Therefore, once their tenure is concluded, they should at least be provided with modest entitlements, because they do a lot for the country, so they should be treated as such.
“Some presidents may have money before they become president, but others may not come from money and would not always be able to earn after concluding their presidency. This is my personal opinion. As a party, the UNP is in discussions regarding this proposed bill,” Kariyawasam told The Sunday Morning.
The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) was critical of both the bill and the procedure followed by the Government in introducing the bill.
“There is a serious concern about the absence of proper procedure followed when bringing this bill to Parliament,” former SLPP MP Sanjeewa Edirimanna charged. He added that it was clear the bill was just another attempt to sabotage the momentum of the SLPP.
“The Government is trying to portray that these entitlements are an extravagance that is a burden on public coffers and that the country will be saving a lot of money by doing away with them, but this is all just a myth. This is nothing more than a political attack. It is an exercise in futility if they think that they will hinder the political force that is the SLPP by removing these entitlements,” he said.
Upon the tabling of a bill, there is a 14-day period for any person to challenge the contents of the bill in the Judiciary. If the bill is not challenged in the Supreme Court, it will then be taken up for debate in Parliament once the 14 days lapse.
SLPI report
A recent Right to Information (RTI) request by the Sri Lanka Press Institute (SLPI) has revealed that Rs. 41.2 million was allocated as stipends for former presidents or their widows. Below are excerpts of the SLPI report on the findings of its RTI request:
Based on this act, a sum of Rs. 37 million had been reserved as provision for 2023. Out of that, Rs. 22.6 million had been spent during the first six months alone as per information released by the Presidential Secretariat under the Right to Information Act.
It is reported that for 2024, a sum of Rs. 41.28 million had been allocated for pensions, office, and fuel allowance of past presidents. This is an increase of Rs. 4 million over the previous year, and as such, it is observed that payments made to former presidents are increased each year.
Former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga held office as the President of Sri Lanka from 12 November 1994 to 19 November 2005. Thereafter, a monthly pension of Rs. 25,000 was paid to her for 10 years up to 2015. From 2016 onwards, she was paid a monthly pension of Rs. 97,500 and in addition Rs. 100,000 as allowance for a private secretary and Rs. 500,000 as fuel allowance.
Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa held office as the President of Sri Lanka from 19 November 2005 to 9 January 2015. He is paid pensions for posts held as Member of Parliament, former Prime Minister, and former President.
A sum of Rs. 71,500 had been paid to him in January 2015 as presidential pension and from there onwards a sum of Rs. 97,500 had been paid per month. In addition, a sum of Rs. 50,000 as private secretary allowance and Rs. 704,100 as fuel allowance is paid to him.
Former President Maithripala Sirisena held office as the President of Sri Lanka from 9 January 2015 to 18 November 2019. A sum of Rs. 48,750 had been paid to him in November 2019 as an allowance and from there onwards a sum of Rs. 97,500 had been paid per month. In addition, a sum of Rs. 100,000 as private secretary allowance and Rs. 704,100 as fuel allowance is paid to him.
Former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa held office as the President of Sri Lanka from 18 November 2019 to 14 July 2022. A sum of Rs. 56,612.90 had been paid to him for July 2022 and from there onwards a sum of Rs. 97,500 has been paid per month. In addition, a sum of Rs. 100,000 as private secretary allowance and Rs. 704,100 as fuel allowance is paid to him.
A sum of Rs. 16,666.67 per month has been paid to Hema Premadasa for 21 years up to 2015 under the relief scheme for widows of former presidents. From there onwards a sum of Rs. 65,000 per month has been paid. In addition, a sum of Rs. 23,000 is paid as private secretary allowance. No fuel allowance has been paid.
It is a speciality that up to September 2024, a sum of Rs. 163.24 million has been paid as pensions to the former President’s widow Hema Premadasa, former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, former President Maithripala Sirisena, and former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.