No credible evidence against opposition leader; Detailed legal advice expected on Monday

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Advocate General Jaju Babu informed the government that the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) letter contains no credible evidence linking Opposition Leader Pinarayi Vijayan and P.A. Mohamed Riyas to the alleged monthly payment case and hawala transactions; it merely presents certain inferences. Therefore, the Vigilance Department cannot register a case based solely on the letter sent by the ED to the DGP.

All financial transactions were conducted through banking channels. The AG conveyed preliminary information and stated that a detailed legal opinion would be provided on Monday, following consultations with the Director General of Prosecution, T. Asaf Ali. The ED's letter had sought the registration of a case against both individuals under the Prevention of Corruption Act regarding Veena Vijayan's financial transactions.

The letter alleged that Pinarayi received Rs 3.28 crore from the CMRL company through Veena. It also detailed the transfer of Rs 85 lakh to Dubai and listed financial transactions amounting to Rs 20.05 crore suspected to be hawala dealings. Records of these financial transactions, handwritten by Veena, were recovered. The letter claimed that Riyas accepted bribes and transferred the funds to Dubai, with Veena assisting in the money transfer. However, the AG noted that the ED has not specified to whom the money was paid in Dubai.

The transactions involving Veena receiving money from CMRL and payments made to Riyas' friends in Kozhikode were all conducted through bank accounts; records of these transactions accompany the letter. However, the ED's letter contains no evidence linking Pinarayi or Riyas to financial dealings between private individuals. Instead, the Advocate General informed the government that the allegations rely on a statement given by Riyas's friend, Hasan. Certain coalition partners, including the Muslim League, share the Advocate General's view.

1. The ED's letter suggests that Veena's financial transactions were not conducted in her personal capacity but on behalf of Pinarayi (while he was Chief Minister) and her husband Riyas (while he was a Minister). However, the Advocate General (AG) maintains there is no evidence linking the two to these transactions.

2. The court had previously rejected the demand for a Vigilance inquiry. The AG's stance is that an FIR should be registered only if evidence is uncovered during the preliminary inquiry.

The Home Department also holds the view that a case cannot be registered solely based on the ED report. The government is likely to order a preliminary inquiry after receiving detailed legal advice from the Advocate General. Registering a case without doing so could lead to the court quashing the FIR and an ensuing political setback for the government.