Security experts say the cost to the taxpayer is significantly lower when the Prime Minister works from a private residence rather than an official residence.
Their comments followed confirmation by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar yesterday that she will continue to work from the location most convenient and necessary to complete the country’s work.
Speaking to Guardian Media, former national security minister Gary Griffith said the cost is "astronomical" when the official Prime Minister's residence is used.
"We have to deploy about 40 Special Branch officers, Guard and Emergency Branch officers, members of the Defence Force, cooks, drivers, maintenance workers, sanitation workers—all of these people have to be fed, they have to be seen about. There’s also a logistics situation that is costly. They have to maintain the property, so using a private residence is significantly lower,” Griffith said.
He noted that this is 20 times more than paying a housing allowance to the Prime Minister.
However, Persad-Bissessar yesterday said she does not get a housing allowance when she uses her private residence.
Griffith said while it is more appropriate and feasible for a leader to reside at the official residence, this may not always be possible.
“If the residence is not suitable because it’s under repairs or it needs major refurbishment, well then the person will be left with no choice than to remain at their home, which is what happened with the President previously and it is presently the case with the Prime Minister.”
Griffith said former President Paula-Mae Weekes chose to live at home with her mother and received a housing allowance rather than move into President’s House.
He said former prime minister Basdeo Panday always stayed at the official residence.
“Back then I was in charge and the Prime Minister's residence was fully operational, because I was a very good military attaché, so I had everything working and everything was fully functional. So there was no need for him to have to make that choice.”
Griffith said the use of a private residence reduces the need for full security deployment.
“Because it is her private property, she looks after the maintenance of her own home. Her electricity bill, the plumbing, the gardening, everything."
Regional security expert Garvin Heerah also confirmed the lower cost to taxpayers, but noted, “The issue is not cost, the issue is the image and the authority of the office and more so the heightened risk and threat environment surrounding the head of government.”
Heerah said operational costs at the official residence are typically higher, though private residence costs vary case by case based on critical needs.
He said security is always elevated for the PM.
“Maintaining what is known as the security bubble wherever the Prime Minister is continues and should be the priority. Once the Prime Minister moves, the bubble must be there so as to ensure her 360-degree security at all times," he revealed.
Heerah said he was unsure whether a policy or precedent exists for national leaders working from home.
“There were occasions where they would work from the private residence," he said.
He said challenges include securing the location, establishing communication infrastructure, continuity of operations, and safeguarding sensitive information, including cybersecurity.
Former president Paula-Mae Weekes also worked from her private home, opting to take a housing allowance and work from home to be with her elderly mother. So too did former presidents Anthony Carmona and George Maxwell-Richards. Former prime ministers Basdeo Panday, Patrick Manning and Dr Keith Rowley all used the official residence while in office.