KATHMANDU: With the government’s decision of reducing the number of security personnel meant for the VIPs, former King Gyanendra’s personal secretary has urged the government to reconsider its decision.
Sagar Prasad Timilsina, personal secretary to former King Gyanendra, has written a letter to the Home Ministry urging it to reconsider the new provision.
Currently, as many as 99 security personnel have been deployed for the security of former King Gyanendra’s family.
Among them, 25 security personnel have been deployed for the former king and queen, 15 for the former princess, 9 for the queen mother, 10 drivers and 40 security personnel stationed at the Nagarjuna security base.
According to the new provision, former royals will be getting 16 security personnel.
Timilsina has sent a letter to the Home Ministry asking it to reconsider the decision as the new provision would not be sufficient for the safety of all members of the royal family.
Likewise, the government has also made some changes in the responsibilities of the incumbents and former office-bearers and civil servants by slashing the number of personnel deployed for their security.
The Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force deployed as bodyguards and in the residences of the former VIPS have been recalled.
The government is preparing to recall the security personnel from more than the prescribed posts.
According to the Police and the Armed Police Headquarters, the Ministry of Home Affairs has recently issued instructions for the implementation of the working procedure along with the recently passed criteria.
Following the directive of the Home Ministry, the armed police deployed under the protection of the ministers, ministers of state and assistant ministers of all the seven state governments have been recalled.
The government has taken measures to bring back the security personnel after finding that the Ministry of Home Affairs had set new standards for the security of the former special guards and found that more security personnel were kept under the pretext of security.
Comment