The 3,089 Personnel ‘Presidential Residence’ Stay Claim: What the Audit Report Really Says…

Subscribe to our WhatsApp Channel

Nothing stirs Sri Lankan feeds faster than a claim about how public money is spent at the top. Last week, some mainstream outlets and social media posts said an official audit showed 3,089 “outsiders” had stayed at presidential residences in 2025, with tens of millions of rupees spent on them, and the government was accused of letting non-officials lodge in state mansions. So, what does the audit report actually say, and why did the media frame it this way? We investigated. Here is what we found.

Social Media Posts:

This is how the claim was shared by some media pages:

Facebook  |  Archived Link Facebook  |  Archived Link

Posts alleging that outsiders had stayed at the presidential residences were also shared:

These posts were based on a report issued by the National Audit Office. Media reports said that although the President did not stay at any presidential residence in 2025, some 3,089 people had stayed at them, and that only three meetings had been held across the seven residences. They reported that Rs. 32,982,675 was spent on electricity, telephones, and other utilities for the seven residences that year, and that although no meeting or stay took place at the Kataragama, Mahiyanganaya and Bentota residences, utility costs were still incurred there. These details appeared in news articles based on the audit report (Archived Link).

Presidential Media Division: no outsiders were given accommodation

The Presidential Media Division rejected the claim, calling it entirely false. It explained that in 2025, personnel from the security, media and other divisions stayed in other buildings within the presidential residence premises on various occasions for official duties, but that no official stayed inside the presidential residences themselves.

Facebook

What the audit report actually says

We checked the 2025 Presidential Secretariat Annual Performance and Audit Report on the official Parliament website. Under “(e) Maintenance Expenses of Presidential Residences,” the report tabled in Parliament clearly states that 3,089 persons stayed and that Rs. 32,982,675 was spent on telephones, electricity, and other utilities for the seven residences. It also notes that although no meeting or stay took place at the Kataragama, Mahiyanganaya and Bentota residences during the year, Rs. 2,447,754 was still spent there on utilities.

The confusion arose because the Auditor General’s performance report referred only to “persons accommodated,” without specifying that they were government officials on official duty. The wording also implied that the 3,089 officials had stayed inside the presidential residences. 

According to the Presidential Media Division, they in fact stayed only in other buildings within the residence premises, not inside the residences themselves. In short, the unclear presentation of the maintenance expenses is what misled both the media and the public.

Building on the Media Division’s statement, some posts went further and wrongly declared the entire report false, while others claimed the reports based on the Auditor General’s findings were untrue as well. Some even framed the whole thing as a smear campaign by the media and the opposition against the government:

Facebook  |  Archived Link Facebook  |  Archived Link

But that is not accurate. A check of Hiru News’ official Facebook page shows the report was published based on the Auditor General’s report and later updated with the Presidential Media Division’s response, so it cannot be called a false report. The post’s edit history confirms that only the official response was added, with no other changes.

So, the original posts were not entirely false. This was a case of misunderstanding driven by the unclear reporting of presidential maintenance expenses in the Auditor General’s performance report. Only the “outsiders stayed there” part is inaccurate; the occupants were officials, not outsiders. The maintenance figures themselves were reported correctly by the media.

Presidential residence maintenance: 2023 / 2024 / 2025

General maintenance for 2023 is not listed separately, but the 2023 audit report includes specific capital spending on a former President’s official residence. According to the 2024 Auditor General’s performance report, Rs. 80,154,422 was spent maintaining eight presidential residences in 2024, which had 392 security personnel and 16 civil employees assigned; the office also paid Rs. 13,741,080 in salaries and allowances for those 16 civil employees (page 12).

Year	Expense description	Amount (Rs.)
2023	General maintenance expenses were folded into the Presidential Secretariat’s overall expenses (not shown separately)	Not listed
2023	Payment to the Sri Lanka Navy for repairs to a former President’s official residence	18,336,135
2023	Installation of an escalator at that official residence	15,093,876
2023	Purchase of a generator for that official residence	4,885,844
2023	Total special capital expenditure for the former President’s official residence	38,315,855
2024	Total maintenance expenses for 8 presidential residences	80,154,422
2024	Salaries and allowances for 16 civil employees serving at the residences	13,741,080
2025	General expenses (telephone, electricity, etc.) for 7 presidential residences	32,982,675
2025	Maintenance for 3 unused residences (Kataragama, Mahiyanganaya, Bentota)	2,447,754
2025	Total 2025 maintenance expenses	35,430,429

A direct, like-for-like comparison across the three years is not really possible. The 2023 report shows only special capital spending of Rs. 38,315,855 on a former President’s official residence (repairs, an escalator, and a generator), with no general maintenance or staff salaries for residences in use. For 2024, both the total maintenance of the eight residences (Rs. 80,154,422) and the salaries of 16 civil employees (Rs. 13,741,080) are clearly given. For 2025, only maintenance bills for ten residences (seven in use, three unused) are provided, with salaries excluded. Because the expense categories and the number of residences differ each year, the three years cannot be compared side by side.

Join us to learn more about our fact-check investigations.

Facebook  |  Twitter  |  Instagram  |  Google News  |  TikTok  |  YouTube

Conclusion:

The claim is missing context rather than simply true or false. The 2025 Presidential Secretariat audit report does state that 3,089 persons were accommodated and gives the utility costs the media reported, so those spending figures are accurate.

What the report failed to make clear is that those 3,089 were officials on duty who stayed in other buildings within the residence premises, not outsiders lodging inside the presidential residences, as the Presidential Media Division confirmed. The unclear wording of the audit report, not a media fabrication, is what caused the public misunderstanding.