Official vs. private: Where does one draw the line?

Saturday, 30 August 2025 00:00 -     - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

The case against former President Ranil Wickremesinghe has resulted in a debate over what constitutes official and private undertakings by an elected official, particularly when he/she happens to be executive president of the country.  

The case against Wickremesinghe is that he used a sum amounting to Rs. 16 million of State funds during a transit stop in London en route from New York during which he attended a ceremony at a British university where his wife Maithree was being awarded a professorship.

At the weekly Cabinet press briefing on Tuesday, which was attended by Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath as the regular Cabinet spokesman Minister Nalinda Jayatissa is overseas, he was asked for a response to allegations that President Anura Kumara Disanayake visited his mother using his official vehicle after being elected to office and if this didn’t constitute the use of State resources for private purposes.

Travelling to a place within the country for personal needs cannot be compared with overseas visits by reserving seats on a flight, he said, defending the President’s visit.

So the logic is that you can use State resources for private purposes while in Sri Lanka but not when you travel overseas.

Let’s go by that argument. President Disanayake has embarked on six overseas tours since taking office and will undertake two more in September. During some of these visits he has held meetings with JVP/NPP supporters. This while on State funded overseas visits. So how much was spent travelling from his hotel or wherever he was having his accommodation to meet party supporters? Did his security detail travel with him and if so how much would the travel costs add up to? These are valid questions that need answers if you apply Herath’s logic.

Also, it’s well known that the President does not occupy official residences allocated to the executive. He spends a great deal of time at the JVP office in Battaramulla which is given both Police (STF included) security as well as army security detail. Is providing taxpayer funded security for a political party office considered private or official?

Recently a private individual filed a Right to Information (RTI) application seeking details on the domestic travel of the President but was refused the formation on grounds that this comes under the exemption clauses in the law against disclosure of information deemed directly relevant to the security of the President.

Take the State sector for example. Senior officials are given official vehicles and it is no secret that those vehicles with the monthly fuel quotas and sometimes Government employed drivers are used for much of the private work of these officials and their families. One has to only go past a Colombo school to see the number of State sector vehicles waiting to pick up children of such State sector employees. Could these be constituted as private or official work?

There was a recent incident where the wife of a senior official in the presidential secretariat took her husband’s car to go shopping and the vehicle met with an accident thus making it a public event. But the Government is mum on the matter.

The question is where does one draw the line on where the official role ends and where the private role begins? This is hard to clarify and hence a grey area which is up for interpretation. In the case of Wickremesinghe, it will be up to the courts to interpret this matter.

Whatever that outcome, the Government’s illogical logic on the matter is laughable. And going by the comments on social media exposing the Government’s double standards, not many are getting hoodwinked by its holier than thou talk which those who are preaching are not practicing. 

 

COMMENTS