Controversy over security detail CBK fears of assassination like her husband Vijaya

Says other former Presidents are granted substantial security arrangements

Former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga raised alarm over a significant reduction in her security detail to 30 personnel, warning of the potential for a targeted assassination, similar to the politically motivated killing of her husband, Vijaya Kumaratunga.  
In a letter to Ravi Seneviratne, the Secretary of the Ministry of Public Security, Kumaratunga expressed concern that the number of security officers assigned to her had been slashed from 50 to just 30.

According to the former President, her security head, Director of the Security Division SSP Chandrakumara, had informed the Senior DIG in charge of the Special Security Division, Ajith Hesiri, that at least 50 officers were necessary for her protection.  
Kumaratunga pointed out that she remains one of the most at-risk former Presidents, having survived an assassination attempt in the past.   
In her letter, she further highlighted police intelligence that revealed the LTTE had publicly declared its intention to target her in both 2006 and 2014, even after her retirement.  
“Despite this threat, my security detail has been drastically reduced,” she wrote.   
“While former President Mahinda Rajapaksa has a security team of 243 personnel, including 63 military and 180 police officers, former Presidents Maithripala Sirisena and Gotabaya Rajapaksa are assigned 109 and 200 officers respectively, she claimed.  The former President said that her security detail has been reduced to 30 officers.  
In her letter, she questioned the rationale behind such a drastic reduction, particularly as other former Presidents are granted substantial security arrangements.   
“Other former Presidents have been assigned security officers of 243, 200 and 109 personnel, while the criteria for limiting my security detail to only 30 officers remain unclear and puzzling, she said.  
She also said that the JVP leaders, who previously claimed they would forgo VIP protection, have benefited from similar provisions, emphasising the discrepancy in the current security policies.