01-13-2006, 12:59 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Immoral UPA tries to save Mr Q </b>
Pioneer.com OP-ed
<b>The illicit request to Britain to de-freeze Bofors bribery accused Quattrocchi's bank accounts is shameful and shocking, says Arun Jaitley</b>
The disclosure made by the news channel CNN-IBN that the Government of India through the Law Ministry, and in particular, through Mr B Datta, Additional Solicitor General of India, officially requested the Government of Great Britain in December 2005 to de-freeze the bank accounts of Mr Ottavio Quattrocchi which were frozen in the course of investigation of Bofors bribery case, has exposed the complete lack of ethics and morality of the UPA Government.
The CBI has investigated the case. Under Indian jurisprudence, the CBI is an independent agency which decides the course of its investigation. Courts have repeatedly held that a political executive can never direct the CBI or any other investigative agency as to what course to follow in the course of its investigation. Yet, the Government of India and its political executive have chosen this course of cover up. The CBI has completely lost its independence.
<b>The Bofors chargesheet against Mr Quattrocchi is still pending.</b> The appropriate authorities in Switzerland had in 1993 informed the Government of India that Mr Quattrocchi was one of the beneficiaries of the bank accounts into which kickbacks in the Bofors case were deposited.
<b>The close proximity of Mr Quattrocchi (an Italian citizen) with the Gandhi family is well known. He had shifted to India soon after the marriage of Rajiv Gandhi with Ms Sonia Gandhi and had become the principal representative of an Italian company, Snam Progetti, in India for several years. His close connections with the Gandhi family were never in doubt. His political clout helped his company immensely.</b>
When the Swiss authorities formally communicated to the Government of India that the kickbacks in the Bofors case were deposited in Mr Quattrocchi's accounts, the Congress Government then headed by PV Narasimha Rao was asked by prominent members to immediately impound Mr Quattrocchi's passport to prevent him from fleeing the country. This was not done and he was allowed to leave the country.
Since then the CBI has been involved in a legal battle to extradite him from Malaysia where he found his new home. The case against him both for extradition and for receipt of kickbacks in the Bofors case are still pending. It is for the CBI and appropriate judicial authorities to take a view in the matter. Even the CBI without permission of the court cannot close the case. Notwithstanding this legal position, for a Law Officer of the Government of India to request the authorities in Britain to de-freeze his accounts is scandalous.
It is an attempt to use unconstitutional means to help a person who has caused wrongful loss to the Government of India. What is the hurry to pass on to Mr Quattrocchi the illegal receipts of the Bofor's deal? Did this money have to be passed on by Mr Quattrocchi to some one else?
The history of the Congress party in relation to the Bofors case is a history of cover-ups. Even though disclosures were made in April 1987 by a Swedish Radio broadcast, that kickbacks had been paid in the case, no FIR was registered as required by law to freeze the accounts and no action was taken to seek legal assistance from Swiss Government.
It was only when the Rajiv Gandhi Government was defeated in December, 1989 that the National Front Government, then supported by the BJP and Left parties, allowed the CBI full permission to file an FIR and make request to appropriate authorities for legal assistance and freezing of accounts. The Congress governments have made repeated cover up efforts some of which are indicated below:
* Non-registration of FIR when the facts of the case came to light. l No request being made to the Swiss authorities for legal assistance and for freezing of accounts.
* In December,1990 the then Law officer of the Government of India headed by Mr Chandra Shekhar (which was supported by the Congress), namely, Mr KTS Tulsi, made a statement that the facts of the case did not disclose an offence and, therefore, should be quashed. The court cast every doubt of the case, which was set aside by the Supreme Court.
* The High Court subsequently quashed the chargesheet in a judgement delivered by Justice GC Mittal and Justice Sat Pal which was later set aside by the Supreme Court.
* In 1992, Madhavsinh Solanki, the then External Affairs Minister, handed over a memorandum to the appropriate Swiss authorities requesting them not to render assistance to Indian authorities. This was exposed by a journalistic investigation and Solanki had to be sacked from the Government.
* After the chargesheets were filed in 1999 and proceedings started, the Delhi High Court delivered an erroneous judgement in 2004 holding a case of prevention of corruption was not made out. When the UPA came back to power, it prevented the CBI from filing an appeal in the case and let the erroneous judgement stand. Pursuant to the said judgement, some other accused were also discharged. Those orders were allowed to remain unchallenged by the CBI before the court. A public interest petition in this regard to continuing the case is now pending before the Supreme Court.
* Now a formal request is illegally made through a Law Officer of the Government of India to appropriate authorities to even release the illegal funds which were lying frozen in Quattrocchi's accounts. Even under the allocation of business rules, the law Ministry has nothing to do with this case.
It has been the argument of the Congress party and its president, Ms Sonia Gandhi, that there was nothing in this case and, therefore, no evidence was forthcoming. The truth of the matter is that despite such cover up attempts, the fact that kickbacks were paid in the name of A&E Services, a company of which Mr Quattrocchi was the beneficiary was a strong indictment of the Congress party and the Gandhi family and those close to Mr Quattrocchi. The fact that Mr Quattrocchi was allowed to flee and still being helped itself is a scandal.
If Mr Quattrocchi requested the appropriate authorities to de-freeze his account, the CBI would oppose it; but why should the political executive of the Government of India make such a request? Why is the Government over-anxious that this money be paid to Mr Quattrocchi.
<b>Two questions arise. First, is it within the knowledge of the CBI that the political executive is making a request for de-freezing the accounts? Second, is it with the approval and authority of the Prime Minister that a Law Officer and the Ministry of Law not authorised in the matter were acting towards de-freezing of these accounts? The answer to the first question will expose the legal infirmity of the action. The answer to the second will put the Prime Minister in the dock and raise several issues of ethics and morality for him.</b>
(The author, a senior BJP leader and Union Law Minister in the NDA Government, is member of the Rajya Sabha)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com OP-ed
<b>The illicit request to Britain to de-freeze Bofors bribery accused Quattrocchi's bank accounts is shameful and shocking, says Arun Jaitley</b>
The disclosure made by the news channel CNN-IBN that the Government of India through the Law Ministry, and in particular, through Mr B Datta, Additional Solicitor General of India, officially requested the Government of Great Britain in December 2005 to de-freeze the bank accounts of Mr Ottavio Quattrocchi which were frozen in the course of investigation of Bofors bribery case, has exposed the complete lack of ethics and morality of the UPA Government.
The CBI has investigated the case. Under Indian jurisprudence, the CBI is an independent agency which decides the course of its investigation. Courts have repeatedly held that a political executive can never direct the CBI or any other investigative agency as to what course to follow in the course of its investigation. Yet, the Government of India and its political executive have chosen this course of cover up. The CBI has completely lost its independence.
<b>The Bofors chargesheet against Mr Quattrocchi is still pending.</b> The appropriate authorities in Switzerland had in 1993 informed the Government of India that Mr Quattrocchi was one of the beneficiaries of the bank accounts into which kickbacks in the Bofors case were deposited.
<b>The close proximity of Mr Quattrocchi (an Italian citizen) with the Gandhi family is well known. He had shifted to India soon after the marriage of Rajiv Gandhi with Ms Sonia Gandhi and had become the principal representative of an Italian company, Snam Progetti, in India for several years. His close connections with the Gandhi family were never in doubt. His political clout helped his company immensely.</b>
When the Swiss authorities formally communicated to the Government of India that the kickbacks in the Bofors case were deposited in Mr Quattrocchi's accounts, the Congress Government then headed by PV Narasimha Rao was asked by prominent members to immediately impound Mr Quattrocchi's passport to prevent him from fleeing the country. This was not done and he was allowed to leave the country.
Since then the CBI has been involved in a legal battle to extradite him from Malaysia where he found his new home. The case against him both for extradition and for receipt of kickbacks in the Bofors case are still pending. It is for the CBI and appropriate judicial authorities to take a view in the matter. Even the CBI without permission of the court cannot close the case. Notwithstanding this legal position, for a Law Officer of the Government of India to request the authorities in Britain to de-freeze his accounts is scandalous.
It is an attempt to use unconstitutional means to help a person who has caused wrongful loss to the Government of India. What is the hurry to pass on to Mr Quattrocchi the illegal receipts of the Bofor's deal? Did this money have to be passed on by Mr Quattrocchi to some one else?
The history of the Congress party in relation to the Bofors case is a history of cover-ups. Even though disclosures were made in April 1987 by a Swedish Radio broadcast, that kickbacks had been paid in the case, no FIR was registered as required by law to freeze the accounts and no action was taken to seek legal assistance from Swiss Government.
It was only when the Rajiv Gandhi Government was defeated in December, 1989 that the National Front Government, then supported by the BJP and Left parties, allowed the CBI full permission to file an FIR and make request to appropriate authorities for legal assistance and freezing of accounts. The Congress governments have made repeated cover up efforts some of which are indicated below:
* Non-registration of FIR when the facts of the case came to light. l No request being made to the Swiss authorities for legal assistance and for freezing of accounts.
* In December,1990 the then Law officer of the Government of India headed by Mr Chandra Shekhar (which was supported by the Congress), namely, Mr KTS Tulsi, made a statement that the facts of the case did not disclose an offence and, therefore, should be quashed. The court cast every doubt of the case, which was set aside by the Supreme Court.
* The High Court subsequently quashed the chargesheet in a judgement delivered by Justice GC Mittal and Justice Sat Pal which was later set aside by the Supreme Court.
* In 1992, Madhavsinh Solanki, the then External Affairs Minister, handed over a memorandum to the appropriate Swiss authorities requesting them not to render assistance to Indian authorities. This was exposed by a journalistic investigation and Solanki had to be sacked from the Government.
* After the chargesheets were filed in 1999 and proceedings started, the Delhi High Court delivered an erroneous judgement in 2004 holding a case of prevention of corruption was not made out. When the UPA came back to power, it prevented the CBI from filing an appeal in the case and let the erroneous judgement stand. Pursuant to the said judgement, some other accused were also discharged. Those orders were allowed to remain unchallenged by the CBI before the court. A public interest petition in this regard to continuing the case is now pending before the Supreme Court.
* Now a formal request is illegally made through a Law Officer of the Government of India to appropriate authorities to even release the illegal funds which were lying frozen in Quattrocchi's accounts. Even under the allocation of business rules, the law Ministry has nothing to do with this case.
It has been the argument of the Congress party and its president, Ms Sonia Gandhi, that there was nothing in this case and, therefore, no evidence was forthcoming. The truth of the matter is that despite such cover up attempts, the fact that kickbacks were paid in the name of A&E Services, a company of which Mr Quattrocchi was the beneficiary was a strong indictment of the Congress party and the Gandhi family and those close to Mr Quattrocchi. The fact that Mr Quattrocchi was allowed to flee and still being helped itself is a scandal.
If Mr Quattrocchi requested the appropriate authorities to de-freeze his account, the CBI would oppose it; but why should the political executive of the Government of India make such a request? Why is the Government over-anxious that this money be paid to Mr Quattrocchi.
<b>Two questions arise. First, is it within the knowledge of the CBI that the political executive is making a request for de-freezing the accounts? Second, is it with the approval and authority of the Prime Minister that a Law Officer and the Ministry of Law not authorised in the matter were acting towards de-freezing of these accounts? The answer to the first question will expose the legal infirmity of the action. The answer to the second will put the Prime Minister in the dock and raise several issues of ethics and morality for him.</b>
(The author, a senior BJP leader and Union Law Minister in the NDA Government, is member of the Rajya Sabha)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->