When a President travels whether to Anuradhapura to see his mother , or to London to accompany his spouse , does the law expect the head of state to discard the security trappings of that office?

Some have yawned that this is a meaningless controversy when measured against grand political corruption in Sri Lanka. It matters not that LKR 16.6 million, LKR 6.6 million or LKR 66 was allegedly spent by the former President. This is a ridiculous question in the context of heads of state traditionally being afforded that privilege in Sri Lanka and elsewhere. The fact that the state law office vigorously resisted the granting of bail to the former President on Friday was part of this hardline stance which has all the signs of being exceedingly counter productive. Other examples proliferate including an ongoing furore as to who was the responsible Minister for releasing 323 high risk cargo containers through Sri Lanka Customs without proper inspections.