Ensure Security of Sri Lankan Opposition MPs

The Sri Lankan Government has suddenly withdrawn the personal bodyguards of opposition MPs (Members of Parliament). The government has made this sudden and drastic move immediately after the announcement of the general election and even as the submission of party nominations are in progress.
Opposition MPs have lodged complaints with the elections commissioner regarding this affair. The commissioner of elections has openly told them that he was not even remotely connected with this action by the government to withdraw the body guards of the opposition MPs.

Objective of Sudden Action
Opposition parties charge that the objective of this sudden action taken by the government at a time when the election campaign was gathering momentum has seriously impeded their freedom of movement and was a huge obstacle to their election campaigns. They charge that the placing of this obstacle at this specific juncture by the government was intended to suppress their election campaign work so that the government propaganda machinery could derive political mileage out of it. But Minister Anura Priyadharsahana Yapa says the government does not have any ulterior motives and added that the withdrawal of MP's body guards was not illegal.
If the withdrawal of the security for these MP's is legally correct, what need is there in that case to only withdraw the security of only opposition members and not of the premier, cabinet ministers, speaker and all government MPs. We would also do well to remember that excepting for one or two MPs in the government, the rest hold ministerial portfolios either with full cabinet status or as non cabinet ministers. The action resorted to by the government in this context can thus be seen to be primarily detrimental only to the political activities of opposition MPs, they explain.

Enjoying Limitless Powers
The government which always proudly claims that it has completely eradicated terrorism in the country never hesitates to extend emergency regulations in the Parliament every month. This clearly proves that it wants to continue to enjoy the limitless powers which are at its disposal.
If the government could argue that a security threat still prevails in the country, how can it justify its claims that the MPs who vote for the passage of emergency regulation in the Parliament are not exposed to the very same level of threats to their security?
Further, at this juncture, could the withdrawal of the bodyguards of opposition parliamentarians without any prior notice be justified by the government?
Democratic People's Front leader Mano Ganeshan and Sri Lanka Muslim Congress leader Rauff Hakeem have filed action in the Supreme Court in this connection, challenging the slashing of their security by the government. After having heard the case the Supreme Court ordered the government to provide them with adequate security. The government responded to the order favorably. But now, of a sudden, their security has been withdrawn arbitrarily without the Supreme Court being consulted or informed about the move.
The government also argues that the withdrawal of the security of MPs all of a sudden at a time when the parliamentary elections are approaching is a usual practice. That argument holds no water.

The Consequences
We do not have any precedent of a similar move taken by any previous government in any past election period. How then could the government withdraw the security of key opposition leaders, and thus seriously jeopardize their personal safety. This is why such an action by the government has received wide condemnation.
We wish to take this opportunity to emphatically state that the action taken by the government to deprive opposition MPs of their security will certainly lead to drastic consequences as far as their personal security is concerned. The government should restore the withdrawn security to the opposition MPs until the new Parliament is elected. The demand is a reasonable one.