Port City’s 14,300 visas raise alarming national security questions

The issuance of 14,300 visas to foreign employees of businesses operating in Colombo Port City has triggered serious questions about immigration oversight, financial security and Sri Lanka’s vulnerability to transnational cybercrime, following disclosures before Parliament’s Committee on Public Finance (CoPF).

The revelations expose a potentially dangerous gap between the ambitious investment agenda of the Colombo Port City Economic Commission (CPCEC) and its capacity to verify whether foreign workers entering the country are employed in legitimate business activities.

Commission Chairman Harsha Amarasekera, PC, informed the committee that the Commission had issued 14,300 visas for foreign employees of Port City businesses but could not vouch for every visa holder. The Commission relies on monthly reports submitted by businesses and random periodic visits by officials to monitor foreign employees.

However, with only 16 staff members, the Commission faces questions about whether its monitoring arrangements are sufficient to oversee thousands of foreign workers and verify compliance across multiple businesses.

The scale of the issue becomes clearer when the number of visas is considered against the businesses concerned. Committee members questioned why certain businesses of strategic importance (BSIs) required approximately 200 foreign employees each, given the nature of their operations. The disclosure raises questions about whether projected employment requirements are realistic and whether the Commission adequately scrutinises applications before recommending visas.

Committee Chairman Dr. Harsha de Silva warned that the matter extended beyond the Commission’s administrative responsibilities, potentially affecting financial-sector stability, anti-money laundering safeguards and Sri Lanka’s international reputation.

He cited official arrival statistics showing increases during the first quarter of 2026 of 458% from Myanmar, 258% from Vietnam and 70% from Cambodia. Although these increases do not establish criminal activity by individual travellers, they warrant careful scrutiny against regional concerns about cyber-scam compounds, illicit financial flows and organised online fraud.

The issue has also attracted diplomatic attention. Dr. de Silva referred to statements by Vietnamese and Chinese embassies, including a Chinese Embassy statement issued on May 29, 2026, and warned that damaging international media coverage could undermine confidence in Sri Lanka’s regulatory environment.

The Commission previously suspended visa recommendations for two authorised persons after five Chinese nationals associated with them were detained and deported. Amarasekera said the suspension lasted approximately three weeks to one month while Commission and immigration officials inspected the businesses concerned.

Nevertheless, Dr. de Silva highlighted a critical legal weakness: deportation for immigration violations is not equivalent to establishing or prosecuting involvement in cyber-scamming activities. Without clearly defined regulations, authorities may struggle to intervene effectively when suspicious employment arrangements emerge before criminal conduct is conclusively established.

The central question is whether Sri Lanka’s investment facilitation framework has developed adequate safeguards alongside its incentives for foreign businesses.

Port City could generate employment, investment and export earnings. But an inability to verify foreign employees would expose the country to immigration abuse, financial crime and reputational damage.

The Commission has been asked to provide Parliament with detailed information on foreign recruitment, nationalities, duration of stay and employment responsibilities within two weeks.

The report must establish whether existing controls are proportionate to the risks. Without transparent records, stronger inter-agency coordination and enforceable compliance standards, Sri Lanka risks allowing an investment initiative to develop regulatory vulnerabilities that could prove far more costly than the benefits it promises.