Immigration and Emigration Controller Harsha Ilukpitiya yesterday, 1 July, unconditionally admitted before the Supreme Court to charges of contempt for failing to implement an interim order suspending the controversial e-visa issuance process.
Following the admission, a three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Yasantha Kodagoda, Janak de Silva, and Arjuna Obeyesekere announced that sentencing will be delivered on 24 July.
Ilukpitiya was accused of disregarding a Supreme Court order issued on 2 August last year, which suspended a Cabinet decision taken under the previous government to hand over the electronic visa issuance process to two private companies.
The order was granted after Parliamentarian Rauff Hakeem and former MPs Patali Champika Ranawaka and M. A. Sumanthiran filed a fundamental rights petition requesting that the Cabinet decision be declared invalid. The court also issued a subsequent order directing Ilukpitiya to continue the visa process under the previous system.
However, he failed to carry out the court’s instructions, and was subsequently remanded on 25 September last year on contempt charges.
When the case was recalled yesterday, Ilukpitiya, represented by President’s Counsel Saliya Peiris, withdrew his earlier denial and admitted guilt.
The court granted Ilukpitiya permission to make a personal statement, during which he said:
“This Honourable Court, I previously claimed I was not guilty of the charges. I now withdraw that claim and accept responsibility.”
Justice Yasantha Kodagoda then asked him whether he understood the gravity of such an admission. In response, Ilukpitiya explained that he had sought advice from the Attorney General regarding the court’s interim order. He said he was advised to seek further clarification from the court and was meanwhile instructed by the then Secretary to the Ministry, Viyani Gunathilaka, not to act on the order until clarification was received.
“I acted based on those instructions,” he said. “At that time, I had already applied for early retirement and requested a transfer to another institution.”
Justice Kodagoda then questioned:
“Are you saying that the non-implementation of the order was due to pressure from a higher authority? When exactly did you receive these instructions?”
Ilukpitiya responded:
“Your Honour, I can’t recall the exact date, but it was before I left the country. The instructions were given to me both verbally and in writing.”
The court also sought views from the petitioners. Rauff Hakeem said the failure to implement the court’s order had not been a personal decision by Ilukpitiya, but it had caused significant losses to the national economy. He urged the court to consider this when deciding on punishment.
Patali Champika Ranawaka told the court that while the loss from the e-visa outsourcing decision had previously been estimated at Rs 3.31 billion, the failure to comply with the court’s order may have increased that figure further.
Ilukpitiya’s counsel appealed for leniency, stating that his client had served during a difficult period and had now accepted responsibility.
The court said it will deliver its verdict on 24 July.
