THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Inquiry Commissioner and Special Court (Vigilance) here on Thursday witnessed dramatic scenes with the vigilance legal adviser objecting to the appearance of a special prosecutor appointed by the government in the bar bribery case against former finance minister K.M. Mani. As a sequel to this, the government terminated the services of the special prosecutor.
Advocate K.P. Satheesan was appointed as special prosecutor in the case while Jacob Thomas was serving as vigilance director. Recently when the vigilance and anti-corruption bureau filed a further investigation report giving a clean chit to Mr Mani, Mr Satheesan had openly flayed it. Vigilance director N.C. Asthana had taken strong exception to this and had even taken up matter with government. The developments in the court room on Thursday as well as the decision to remove Mr Satheesan are a sequel to this.
Meanwhile, six persons, including administrative reforms commission chairperson V.S. Achuthanandan, bar owner Biju Ramesh and BJP leader V. Muraleedharan, informed the court on Monday that they would be filing objections against the vigilance report giving a clean chit to Mr Mani. However, agriculture minister V.S. Sunilkumar and LDF convenor Vaikom Viswan, who had earlier filed petitions seeking further investigation, did not file an objection on Thursday.
When the case was taken up by the court on Monday, the special prosecutor appeared. However, vigilance legal adviser C.C. Augustine and Mani's lawyer opposed Satheesan's appearance. The legal adviser maintained that Mr Satheesan was appointed only to appear for a trial in the case and that he did not receive any communication regarding Satheesan representing vigilance for the case in the special court. But Mr Satheesan objected to this and maintained that it was due to a lack of legal awareness that the legal adviser was maintaining such a stand. Subsequently, the court interfered and maintained that the government should give a clarification on the matter and posted the case to June 6.
It was the second further investigation report that was filed by the vigilance SP K.E. Baiju last month, maintaining that there was no fresh evidence for the demand or acceptance of bribe by Mani. The further investigation was ordered by the court in August 2016 as per a request by the VACB, soon after the LDF came to power, citing that certain fresh evidence had emerged. Jacob Thomas was heading the VACB at that time.
According to sources, Mr Satheesan had insisted on checking the audio conversations of the CD submitted by bar owner Biju Ramesh, which allegedly contained conversations of bar owners regarding handing over a bribe to Mani. But the vigilance maintained that the CD itself was found to be a tampered one in forensic tests and hence it could not be considered as evidence. Other than Biju Ramesh and his driver Ambili, no bar owners had given statements in support of the allegation that bribe was handed over to Mani, said sources.
