Jatinder Singh, Jadetimes Contributor
J. Singh is a Jadetimes news reporter covering the USA
Stripping a war-time leader of entitlements may save reserves on paper — but at what national cost?
If Sri Lanka’s civil war had dragged into 2025, the cost for the government to sustain it would have been catastrophic — tens of thousands more lives lost and billions drained from the national reserves. Yet today, the government justifies removing Mahinda Rajapaksa’s residence, security, and facilities in the name of saving money. The question is unavoidable: if he had not stopped the war in 2009, would this nation even have reserves left to protect? Can the rate of war’s destruction ever be compared to the relatively small entitlements of the leader who ended it? By cutting these benefits, is the government truly being practical — or is it diminishing the sacrifice that secured Sri Lanka’s survival?
Colombo, September 11, 2025 — Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa has vacated his official residence at Wijerama Road, Colombo 07, following the passing of the Presidents’ Entitlements (Repeal) Act in Parliament yesterday. The Act, endorsed by Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne, abolishes state-provided residences, pensions, secretarial allowances, transport, and other privileges once granted to ex-presidents and their families.
Rajapaksa, accompanied by his wife Shiranthi Rajapaksa, left the residence around 1:15 p.m. today, as large crowds of supporters gathered outside to bid farewell. Diplomats and politicians were also present earlier in the morning, signaling the weight of this moment in Sri Lanka’s political history. According to party officials, Rajapaksa will now relocate to his private residence, Carlton House in Hambantota, where a welcoming ceremony has been organized by the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP).
A Leader Who Ended a War
Mahinda Rajapaksa is remembered for his decisive role in ending Sri Lanka’s nearly three-decade-long civil war. In May 2009, under his leadership, the Sri Lankan military defeated the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), one of the world’s deadliest terrorist organizations. This victory restored peace, safeguarded national sovereignty, and paved the way for development.
Analysts caution that if a conflict of that scale were to resurface in 2025, the country could face over 100,000 casualties and lose billions from its national reserves, plunging Sri Lanka into economic ruin. For many, Rajapaksa’s leadership remains a cornerstone of the nation’s survival — and his safety is therefore seen as a matter of national interest.
Security Concerns Amid Political Decisions
Critics argue that removing state-provided housing and protection for Rajapaksa is not reform, but political retaliation. Despite finishing the war and driving Sri Lanka into a new era of development, highways, and expanded national reserves, Rajapaksa continues to face security threats even today.
Jadetimes obtained exclusive footage of Rajapaksa leaving his residence, surrounded by loyal supporters chanting his name. The scene highlights not just his enduring popularity, but also the public unease created by the government’s decision. Many now ask: who will be responsible if something happens to the former President, whose safety remains a matter of national importance?
Could This Lead to Fresh Protests?
This decision comes at a fragile time for Sri Lanka, where protests in recent years toppled governments and fueled social unrest. Observers warn that controversial moves such as stripping Rajapaksa of entitlements could ignite another wave of demonstrations, especially among his large support base in the south. For a nation still recovering from economic and political turmoil, critics believe the government’s approach is shortsighted. Instead of prioritizing security for a leader who defeated terrorism and elevated Sri Lanka’s development, they accuse the government of playing politics with national stability.
The Presidents’ Entitlements Act may be hailed by some as a cost-cutting reform. Yet, the sight of Mahinda Rajapaksa — the man who ended a war in 2009 — leaving his official residence under public scrutiny raises troubling questions. Will this decision undermine Sri Lanka’s fragile stability? Could it trigger fresh unrest? And most importantly, who bears responsibility if the safety of a war-time leader is compromised? As the debate unfolds, one truth is clear: stripping former presidents of protections may come at a higher price than the government is prepared to pay.
