Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) has filed a fundamental rights petition (SC/FR/221/2024) in the Supreme Court today (July 30) challenging the procedural violations and abuse of public trust in the procurement of private entities to handle the Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) system for issuing visas to tourists visiting Sri Lanka.
This petition, filed in the public interest, highlights concerns over a lack of transparency and non-adherence to guidelines in the decision-making and procurement processes that affect the tourism industry, national economy, and national security. TISL argues that the fundamental rights of citizens to equality and the right to information, as guaranteed under Articles 12(1) and 14A of the Constitution, have been violated by the actions and inactions of the respondents.
The petition names several respondents, including the Minister of Public Security, the Controller General of Immigration, the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority, GBS Technology Services & IVS Global-FZCO, VFS VF Worldwide Holdings LTD, the Cabinet of Sri Lanka, and the Attorney General.
Key issues listed in the petition include:
- Improper and irregular selection of private entities as authorized representatives for issuing visas.
- Agreements with private parties that could lead to severe financial losses and damage to the tourism sector.
- An incident at Bandaranaike International Airport in May 2024, which highlighted problems with the appointment of private entities for visa processing.
- The previous partnership with Mobitel (Pvt) Limited from 2012, which ran smoothly without major issues such as breakdowns, negative publicity, or data breaches.
- Mobitel (Pvt) Limited’s proposal in August 2023 to improve the ETA system at no cost to the government.
- Mobitel (Pvt) Limited’s proposal to provide ETA platform services for USD 1 per application, in contrast to the USD 18.50 charged by GBS Technology Services & IVS Global-FZCO and VFS VF Worldwide Holdings LTD.
The petition calls for the respondents to be held accountable for their illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable actions or omissions in the procurement process.