NDA
Memorandum to the President of India on Bofors
January
20, 2006
Honourable
Rashtrapati Ji,
We, the
Members of National Democratic Alliance, representing several principal
opposition parties, are constrained to encroach upon your valuable time
to draw your notice to the gross and scandalous abuse of power and of
democratic institutions by the UPA Government and the Congress Party
in particular to help an Italian fugitive Ottavio Quattrocchi in the
Bofors Bribery case.
The Bofors
gun deal shocked the conscience of the nation. It became symbolic of
corruption in public life. It was a representative illustration of a
case where purchase of Defence equipments could be vitiated by bribery
and kick backs. The case relates back to a purchase made by the Government
of India vide an agreement of March, 1986. Several trials conducted
by the Indian Army had favoured a French gun SOFMA. This preference
was switched over in a subsequent trial of Swedish gun Bofors. In between
these trials, an important development had taken place. M/s A. E. Services,
a company registered in Tax Havens.. had entered into a contract with
Noble Industries, which manufactured the Bofors gun, on 31 "October,
1985. This agreement provided that A.E. Services would obtain for Bofors
the Indian order on or before 31st March, 1986 and be entitled to its
commission. Who was the powerful man behind A.E. Services? A.E. Services
indeed succeeded in obtaining the order on 26 March, 1986.
The Swiss
banking documents filed by the CBI in its chargesheet pending in the
Court revealed that the beneficiaries of the A.E Services were Mr. Ottavio
Quattrocchi, a close friend of Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi and Mrs. Sonia
Gandhi. Thus, it was clear that Mr. Ottavio Quattrocchi swung the contract
for the Bofors gun on basis of' kick backs which were paid to him. This
indeed was very embarrassing for the Gandhi family.
Since the
beginning, the Congress supported governments attempted a cover up of
this case. Attempts at cover up include the following:
•
From 1987 till December, 1989 no FIR was registered. No assistance in
investigation was sought from the Swiss authorities for finding out
the details of the bribes.
•
Parliamentary institution was subverted by appointing a JPC headed by
Shri Shankranand, which gave a false report stating that these were
winding up charges paid to the companies by Bofors since kick backs
could not be paid.
•
Shri Madhavsinh Solanki, the then Minister of External Affairs in 1992
asked the Swiss authorities through a written aide memoire not to cooperate
with India.
•
In 1993 when the Swiss formally informed India that Quattrocchi was
the beneficiary of the kick backs, his passport was not impounded and
he was allowed to escape from India.
• When the Delhi High Court in 2004 and 2005 delivered two erroneous
judgments the same were allowed to attain finality and not taken up
in appeal.
• In December 2005 an Additional Solicitor General of India asked
the British Government through the Crown Prosecution Services to de
freeze the accounts of Ottavio Quattrocchi which had been frozen in
2003 at the request of CBI.
As against
this, the various attempts at investigations had only been made either
during the National Front Government in 1990 or when the NDA was in
power for six years. These steps included
•
Registration of FIR in January 1990
• Letter of Request to Swiss and Swedish authorities to deliver
evidence to India
• Freezing of accounts of all beneficiary companies in Switzerland
in 1990 itself.
• Obtaining entire documents from Swiss and Swedish authorities.
• Filing of a composite charge sheet in October 1999 before the
Special Judge, Delhi.
• Attempts at extradition of Quattrocchi from Malaysia.
• Freezing of further accounts of Quattrocchi in Great Britain
in 2003.
There have been several erroneous judgements which have been rendered
in this case by various judicial authorities. Some of them were taken
up in appeal and reversed. But the last two were allowed to attain finality.
These are illustrated as under :-
•
In December 1990, upon a concession by the Additional Solicitor General
of India during the period of Shri Chandrashekhar's government, the
Delhi High Court questioned the validity of the investigation. The Supreme
Court reversed the judgment of Delhi High Court.
•
In 1994, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and
the investigations. The Supreme Court passed serious strictures and
reversed the judgement.
•
In 2002, a Judge of the Delhi High Court held that the chargesheet was
liable to be quashed since Central Vigilance Commission's permission
was not taken prior to the filing of Charge sheet. The Supreme Court
quashed the judgment.
•
In 2004 Delhi High Court held that Prevention of Corruption was not
made out in the case. The UPA Government prevented the filing of appeal
against this erroneous judgment, and allowed it to attain finality.
•
In 2005, Delhi High Court held that the documents were not properly
authenticated by the Swiss and therefore could not be used against the
petitioners. The judgment was erroneous; it was allowed to attain finality
and not challenged.
What emerges
from the above is clear.
(a) The political system of India has been subverted to help an Italian
fugitive merely because he had close connections with the Congress
party. He escaped from India when the Swiss authorities informed India
about his status as a beneficiary in the Bofors case. He escaped from
Malaysia when an appeal for his extradition was pending in the courts.
The political executive of India has now attempted to de freeze his
British bank accounts. He has been benefited at the cost of the Indian
tax payers. His own appeals for de freezing the accounts were rejected.
The Government chose to pass on this voluntary concession in his favour
since they were eager to commercially benefit him.
(b) The
parliamentary system of India was subverted inasmuch as the JPC headed
by Shri Shankranand produced a factually incorrect report stating
that these were merely winding up charges.
(c) A
series of judicially incorrect judgments is a cause for concern. Most
of them were taken in appeal and reversed. The UPA government has
attempted two of them to attain finality. Fortunately, some of them
have been re opened before the Supreme Court through Public Interest
Litigation.
(d) The
CBI has been completely subverted its independence. Having filed a
charge sheet against Quattrocchi with substantive evidence, initiated
extradition proceedings, having issued a Red Coner alert, and having
got his accounts frozen, it is now contending that it has no evidence
against Quattrocchi.
(e) The
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16th January, 2006 directed the CB1 to endeavor
to maintain a status quo ante. It was expecting from the CBI to countermand
the advice of the Additional Solicitor General to the Crown Prosecution
Service to immediately trace out the source of funding and place the
evidence before the British, but they did not do so. Instead within
3 hours of the Supreme Court order, the CBI issued a clean chit to
Quattrocchi. The Defence Minister announced that the Supreme Court
order is almost incapable of compliance.
SIR, the
Bofors case is not merely a corruption case. What is at trial is the
strength of Indian democracy. Is an Italian Fugitive close to the Gandhi
family going to be helped in a manner that every democratic institution
in India is subverted.
Is Indian
democracy so vulnerable that it can look a helpless spectator to this
subversion? As the Head of the State, the country look up to you for
guidance. The National Democratic Alliance, therefore, appeals to you
to intervene in the matter and ensure that the injustice done above
is corrected, that the Law Minister Shri Hans Raj Bhardwaj is dismissed
and that the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh and the UPA Chairperson
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi come out openly to dispel doubts about their position
which have been raised in public mind.
Yours
faithfully,
Members
of the National Democratic Alliance
TO
HON'BLE,
THE RASHTRAPATI JI,
RASHTRAPATI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI.
|
