13 September 2024 11:14 pm Views - 3625
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Preethi Padman Surasena, Kumuduni Wickremasinghe, and Achala Wengappuli, directed petitioner M.A. Sumanthiran PC to submit a rule before the Court on September 25, in accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Court, Tribunal, or Institution Act No. 08 of 2024.
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 Authorization (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 provided evidence, confirming they had not received any instructions from the Controller General of Immigration and Emigration to carry out the Court's order.
Indika Herath, Controller of the Information and Technology Department of Immigration and Emigration, affirmed that his department is capable of implementing the court order by reverting to the earlier system and confirmed that it would take approximately two months. He further stated that he had learned the Attorney General had not yet issued instructions to implement the interim order.
At the outset of the proceedings, pursuant to a motion filed by the Attorney General, the Supreme Court ordered the Controller General of Immigration and Emigration to appear before the Court in person for failing to implement the Court’s order. The Court was later informed that the Controller General was overseas and would return to Sri Lanka on September 21. 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.
Additional Solicitor General Viveka Siriwardena, appearing on behalf of the Attorney General, informed the Court that the Controller General had raised concerns regarding practical difficulties in implementing the order.
The three-judge bench, comprising Justices Preethi Padman Surasena, Kumuduni Wickremasinghe, and Achala Wengappuli, observed that failure to implement the Court's order amounted to contempt of court, and those responsible for this violation should be held accountable.
Counsels who represented the petitioners in several Fundamental Rights petitions filed challenging the procedural violations by officials in the procurement of private entities to handle the Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) system for issuing visas to tourists visiting Sri Lanka, reiterated the importance of issuing a rule against the respondent for failing to implement the Supreme Court order.
The members of the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) of the Parliament M.A. Sumanthiran PC, Rauff Hakeem and Patali Champika Ranawaka made their oral submissions while appearing in person. Upul Jayasuriya PC with Sithara Sampath Wijewardane appeared for Parliamentarian Ashoka Abeysinghe. Sanjeeva Jayawardena PC with Rukshan Senadheera appeared for Dr. Rohan Pethiyagoda and Chandra Jayaratne. Senior Counsel Suren Gnanaraj appeared for the Sri Lanka Association of Inbound Tour Operators and several other petitioners. Senior Counsel Senani Dayaratne appeared for Transparency International Sri Lanka. Dilrukshi Dias Wickremasinghe PC with Vishwa De Livera Tennakoon appeared for Attorney-at-Law S.M. Dissanayaka. Additional Solicitor General Viveka Siriwardena appeared for the Attorney General.
The petitioners cited Minister of Public Security Tiran Alles, Ministry Secretary Viyani Gunathilaka, the Cabinet of Ministers and several others as respondents.
In this matter, the petitioners stated that, according to the new visa facilitation system, replaced a previous quick electronic travel authorization (ETA) process which led to allow the private company to earn nearly $ 50 million annually if tourist arrival projections remain unchanged. They stated this meant the implementation of an outsourcing scheme for visa processing, over the issuance, managing of online and on arrival visa, to a consortium led by VFS Global, with an additional $ 18.50 service charge imposed for each visa across all visa categories excluding payment of processing charges and local taxes which would in total account for approximately $ 25.