'Not Merely A Corruption Case'

'NDA Memorandum to the President of India on Bofors'

January 20, 2006

To
Hon'ble, The Rashtrapatiji
Rastrapati Bhawan
New Delhi

Honourable Rashtrapatiii,

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 UPAgovernment and the Congress Party in particular to help an Italian fugitive Ottavio Quattrocchi in the Boforsbribery 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 ofdefence equipments could be vitiated by bribery and kick backs. The case relates back to a purchase made by thegovernment 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 intax 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-mémoire 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 Frontgovernment 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 Italianfugitive close to the Gandhi family going to be helped in a manner that every democratic institution in India issubverted?

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