Although the Presidential Secretariat has instructed that coordinators appointed under the ‘Clean Sri Lanka’ National Programme be facilitated at the Provincial, District, and Divisional levels, Divisional Secretaries (DSs) have declined to comply with these directives, citing concerns that such arrangements pose a serious threat to the independence and neutrality of Sri Lanka’s State administrative structure.
This position has been formally communicated in a letter sent by the Sri Lanka Association of Divisional Secretaries and Assistant Divisional Secretaries to the Presidential Secretariat. The letter was issued in response to a directive dated 20 March 2026 (PS/CSL/01/02), which instructed District Secretaries and Divisional Secretaries to appoint ‘Clean Sri Lanka’ programme coordinators and to provide them with office space, administrative support, and staff assistance through Divisional Secretariats.
In their response, the Association emphasised that Sri Lanka already maintains a comprehensive, well‑established administrative mechanism within the public service. This framework extends from Ministries and Departments to Provincial Councils, District Secretariats, and Divisional Secretariats, reaching down to the grassroots level. They pointed out that these institutions are supported by internal audit units, national audit mechanisms, Provincial and District Coordination Committees, and established reporting and monitoring systems, all of which are mandated to coordinate, oversee, and implement Government programmes.
The Association stated that the ‘Clean Sri Lanka’ programme, identified by the Government as a key national initiative under the vision “Beautiful Country – Happy People”, can be implemented efficiently through these existing administrative structures. They argued that the creation of parallel coordination mechanisms is unnecessary and risks duplicating functions already performed within the public service.
Despite this, the Presidential Secretariat’s earlier communication indicated that coordinators had already been appointed at the District and Divisional levels island‑wide, and directed that they be provided with office facilities within District and Divisional Secretariats. The directive further specified that a Management Service Officer or Development Officer should be assigned to assist these coordinators in carrying out their duties.
Rejecting this approach, the Association reiterated that Divisional Secretariats are constitutionally recognised public institutions mandated to serve citizens without political, ethnic, religious, or other forms of bias. They warned that introducing externally appointed individuals, particularly those perceived to have political affiliations, into these institutions could undermine the independence of the public service and interfere with long‑standing administrative procedures.
The letter further noted that similar attempts to introduce externally appointed coordinators into the State administrative framework have been made in the past but were resisted in order to preserve institutional neutrality and public trust. The Association stressed that the credibility of Divisional Secretariats stems from their independence and their role as trusted State institutions accountable to the public rather than to political authorities.
Speaking to The Daily Morning yesterday (30 April), Association President R. Senthil confirmed that the Association had officially communicated its objections to the Presidential Secretariat and would not implement the directive in its present form. He explained that assigning State officers to work under individuals who are not members of the public service, and allocating public resources for their use, raises serious legal, administrative, and accountability concerns.
“We have urged the Presidential Secretariat to reconsider this decision and instead utilise the existing administrative framework to implement the programme,” he said. “Until such reconsideration occurs, we will refrain from facilitating these arrangements. If the Government still considers it necessary to appoint coordinators, they should be stationed within relevant Local Government institutions, not Divisional Secretariats.”
Meanwhile, efforts to contact officials of the Presidential Secretariat responsible for overseeing the ‘Clean Sri Lanka’ initiative for comment were unsuccessful.
(Adopted and expanded form an article published in The Morning)