Sri Lanka jails immigration chief for two years

Above, people gather in front of the Department of Immigration and Emigration in Colombo on July 18, 2022. Sri Lanka’s immigration chief was the latest top official jailed under the government’s anti-corruption drive. (AFP file photo)
Short Url
  • Harsha Ilukpitiya pleaded guilty to ignoring court orders to end a multi-million dollar contract that outsourced visa services to a foreign consortium
  • A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court handed down the two-year sentence to Ilukpitiya – who has already spent a year in custody – for contempt

COOMBO: Sri Lanka’s immigration chief was sentenced to two years in prison Tuesday, the latest top official jailed under the government’s anti-corruption drive.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has revived corruption cases against members of the former administrations of the two Rajapaksa brothers – Mahinda and Gotabaya, and purged several top officials.
In the latest case, Harsha Ilukpitiya pleaded guilty to ignoring court orders to end a multi-million dollar contract that outsourced visa services to a foreign consortium.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court handed down the two-year sentence to Ilukpitiya – who has already spent a year in custody – for contempt.
The case centered on a visa handling contract awarded by the previous government, which replaced a local provider charging one dollar per visa with a foreign consortium that raised the fee to $25.
The consortium – comprising India’s GBS Technology Services and IVS Global FZCO, with VFS Global as a technology partner – even applied the fee to citizens of countries that did not need visas.
Opposition parties and then-tourism minister Harin Fernando had argued the fee would discourage tourists.
Petitioners alleged that the contract was not awarded transparently and estimated that the consortium stood to earn up to $2.75 billion over a 16-year period.
The Supreme Court last year ordered the temporary reinstatement of the previous provider, which Ilukpitiya ignored.
The court has yet to rule on the legality of the outsourcing deal.