Immigration Controller Harsha Illukpitiya’s sudden guilty plea in Sri Lanka’s billion-rupee e-visa contempt case sparks speculation of higher-level interference. As shocking details unfold in court—including potential influence from a top ministry official questions intensify: Did he fall on the sword to protect someone more powerful?
In a dramatic twist raising eyebrows across the country, Immigration and Emigration Controller Harsha Illukpitiya accused of contempt of court for defying a Supreme Court order related to Sri Lanka’s controversial e-visa process unconditionally pled guilty before the apex court.
He informed the bench that he was withdrawing his earlier plea of “not guilty,” reversing his initial legal stance.
The Supreme Court, taking note of the change, scheduled the announcement of his sentencing for July 24.
The backdrop to the case is rooted in a Supreme Court interim injunction issued on August 2 last year, in response to Fundamental Rights petitions filed by then-MPs Patali Champika Ranawaka, M.A. Sumanthiran, and Rauff Hakeem. The court had temporarily blocked a Cabinet decision by the previous government to outsource the e-visa issuance system to two private entities.
Following that, a second injunction ordered the Department of Immigration and Emigration to revert to the previous in-house visa issuance procedure. However, Illukpitiya failed to implement the order prompting the Supreme Court to remand him on September 25 on charges of contempt.
The case came up before a three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Yasantha Kodagoda, Janak de Silva, and Arjuna Obeysekera.
At the hearing, Illukpitiya’s attorney, President’s Counsel Saliya Peiris, formally withdrew his client’s earlier plea of innocence and confirmed that Illukpitiya now admits to the charge.
Peiris further explained that Illukpitiya, a senior public servant, had already been imprisoned for nine months and sought permission for his client to issue a formal statement.
After being briefed by the court about the legal implications of such a plea, Illukpitiya made his declaration: “I previously declared myself innocent of these charges. Now I withdraw it. I plead guilty to the relevant charges.”
Justice Yasantha Kodagoda questioned him: “Do you understand the seriousness of this statement?”
Illukpitiya responded, “Your Honor, I consulted the Attorney General for guidance. I was directed to seek clarity on the interim order. The then Ministry Secretary advised me not to act on the court’s injunction until further instructions were received. I complied with that directive. I had also applied for early retirement and a departmental transfer during that time.”
The judge then asked if any external influence had prevented him from implementing the court’s order.
Illukpitiya replied, “Your Honor, Ministry Secretary Mr. Viyani Gunathilaka instructed me not to act on the court order until the Attorney General’s response was obtained. I documented these instructions both verbally and in writing.”
Pressed further, he admitted that he couldn’t recall the exact date of those instructions but confirmed they were given before he traveled abroad.
Justice Kodagoda then raised a critical question: was it appropriate for a senior officer to await ministerial guidance before implementing a court order?
The bench also heard from the petitioners.
Attorney Rauff Hakeem asserted that the failure to comply with the injunction had caused extensive damage to the national economy.
He requested the court consider these consequences when passing sentence.
Patali Champika Ranawaka added that the e-visa project had long been tainted by corruption. He claimed that visa services that could have cost just one US dollar through Mobitel were instead outsourced at $25, leading to a massive Rs. 3.71 billion loss. He stated a parliamentary committee had directed the Auditor General to conduct a forensic audit.
Ranawaka further claimed that earlier estimates had pegged the loss at Rs. 331 million, but this figure had grown significantly due to Illukpitiya’s failure to implement the court order. He said the total loss could be calculated by multiplying the number of tourists during that time by the $24 excess.
In defense, Peiris said Illukpitiya was simply a victim of bad timing caught in a bureaucratic power play and asked for leniency, citing the toll his prolonged detention had taken on his family.
The three-judge panel concluded the hearing by allowing all parties two weeks to file written submissions. The final verdict will be delivered on July 24.
