By Adolf
As the case involving a former President is due to be taken up on 28 January, unresolved questions surrounding expenditure incurred during an official visit to the United Kingdom continue to attract public attention. These questions are not about personalities; they are about accountability, financial propriety, and the integrity of public office.
Expenditure
The controversy centres on expenses reportedly amounting to between £33,000 and £35,000—approximately Rs. 16 million—incurred during a single day’s stop in the UK, following the former President’s participation in the United Nations sessions in New York. The visit included a call at a UK university where the former President’s spouse was awarded a PhD.
UK High Commission
According to available records, the Sri Lanka High Commission in the UK requested around £35,000 to cover costs associated with the former President, his wife, a private secretary, a medical officer, security personnel, and a media officer. However, documentation reportedly accounts for expenditure of only about £18,000, leaving a discrepancy of approximately £17,000 that has yet to be clearly explained. Several individual expenses have also raised eyebrows. Reports indicate that nearly £10,000 was spent on hiring two vehicles, despite the fact that the daily hire cost of a high-end vehicle in the UK is estimated to be around £250. Additionally, approximately £5,000 was reportedly paid for access to a VIP lounge, while hotel accommodation costs are said to have amounted to about £3,000 for one night. These figures naturally prompt legitimate questions. Why was such a substantial amount spent on transport? And most critically, how does one account for the apparent gap between the funds requested and the expenses officially recorded? Was the balance shared?
Money Unaccounted
Equally troubling are questions surrounding institutional follow-up. It has been alleged that a file relating to possible misuse of funds was submitted to the then Secretary to the President, yet no action followed. Furthermore, concerns have been raised as to why audit observations were reportedly ignored by the then Foreign Secretary. If audit findings were indeed flagged, the failure to act on them represents a serious governance lapse that extends beyond any individual visit or office-holder. It is important to state clearly that these matters remain allegations and questions, not judicial findings. The former President, the officials involved, and the institutions concerned are entitled to due process. However, due process does not preclude transparency. On the contrary, timely and credible explanations are essential to maintain public confidence—especially when public funds are involved. As the court date approaches, there is a compelling case for these questions to be addressed openly and comprehensively. Doing so would not only clarify the specific expenditures under scrutiny, but also reaffirm the broader principle that no public office, however high, is exempt from financial accountability. In a country striving to restore trust in governance and public institutions, silence or ambiguity serves no one. Clear answers—before 28 January—would serve both justice and the public interest.
