Controversial Visa Deal: Former immigration chief appeals for bail in contempt of court case

by Lakmal Sooriyagoda   

The former Controller General of Immigration and Emigration, Harsha Ilukpitiya, who has been in remand custody for nearly four months in connection with contempt of court proceedings, sought bail from the Supreme Court yesterday.   

On September 25, 2024, the Supreme Court ordered Harsha Ilukpitiya to be remanded until the conclusion of the contempt of court proceedings for failing to implement the Court’s order regarding the controversial visa deal. This order was issued against the respondent under Section 9(7) of the Contempt of Court, Tribunal, or Institution Act No. 08 of 2024.   

Saliya Pieris PC, along with Upul Kumarapperuma PC, appearing on behalf of Harsha Ilukpitiya, sought bail, citing that their client had been in remand custody since September 25 of last year. The petitioners in these applications, including M.A. Sumanthiran PC, informed the Court that they would raise objections to granting bail to the respondent.   

The Supreme Court decided to set an earlier date for considering the bail application, as the Court bench was not properly constituted following the recusal of Justice Priyantha Fernando from hearing the matter. Accordingly, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices A.H.M.D. Nawaz, Achala Wengappuli, and Priyantha Fernando, fixed the matter for January 27.   

The Supreme Court had issued a rule charging former Controller General of Immigration and Emigration with contempt of court for failing to implement its order, which had suspended a Cabinet decision granting approval for online and expatriate visa operations in Sri Lanka.   

It was revealed before the Court that the first respondent, Ilukpitiya, had failed to implement the Supreme Court’s interim order dated August 2, 2024, which mandated the reinstatement of the previous quick Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) process. A manager from the Business Solutions Division of Sri Lanka Mobitel and the Controller of the Information and Technology Department of Immigration and Emigration had provided evidence, confirming they had not received any instructions from the Controller General of Immigration and Emigration to carry out the Court’s order. Additionally, the Court was informed that the respondent had set aside a proposal from Mobitel, which aimed to implement the visa operation system within 24 hours.