ED letter: SIT may question Pinarayi; government to decide on probe Monday

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The government may decide on Monday whether to take action based on the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) letter seeking a case against Opposition Leader Pinarayi Vijayan, P.A. Mohammed Riyas and T. Veena. Although legal advice has said that a case can be registered directly, the government is considering a preliminary Vigilance inquiry or an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT). An SIT probe is considered more likely.

The Advocate General has advised that the government can decide on the nature of the investigation. Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan, who was in Delhi, returned to Kochi on Saturday night. He is expected to meet Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala in Thiruvananthapuram on Monday to discuss the matter and take a decision.

Chennithala said the government had received the Advocate General’s legal advice and that further action would be decided after consulting the Chief Minister.

The ED’s letter contains alleged hawala transaction records, but the government is also expected to consider the possible political implications before taking a decision. If an FIR is registered and an investigation is conducted as sought by the ED, it could give central agencies an opportunity to become involved in the case. Some Congress leaders are reportedly against such a move, arguing that the CPM could portray it as a BJP-Congress deal.

The CPM has already threatened to launch a protest demanding an investigation against the two leaders. CPM general secretary M.A. Baby has alleged that the move is aimed at targeting the party. Senior CPM leader A.K. Balan has challenged the government to register an FIR. The CPM, however, has been accused of trying to put pressure on the government to prevent such action.

Vigilance and SIT probes would be different

If the matter is handed over to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, it would examine the allegations in the ED letter and record the statements of Pinarayi Vijayan, P.A. Mohammed Riyas and T. Veena. Further action would be taken only if the preliminary inquiry finds substance in the allegations. A raid would not be part of such a preliminary inquiry, and the possibility of an FIR would be lower.

If an SIT is appointed, it can conduct a detailed investigation into all aspects of the allegations on its own. It can also record statements. An FIR would not necessarily be required at the initial stage. The SIT could also conduct searches linked to Pinarayi Vijayan, Mohammed Riyas and Veena if required as part of the investigation.

Such a probe could also help the government avoid allegations that it simply followed the route suggested by the ED. At the same time, it would not amount to giving the CPM a clean chit.

It is in this context that the government is considering a preliminary Vigilance inquiry and an SIT investigation.

The aim is to examine the matter and gather more evidence. The statements of Pinarayi Vijayan, P.A. Mohammed Riyas and T. Veena will be recorded. The government is of the view that further action can be considered after this stage.

The CPM has already alleged that the government is planning another investigation similar to the SNC-Lavalin case.