Did Rajiv stall Bofors probe? An ex-CBI chief opens up

It isn’t clear if the CBI probe into the Bofors scam was delayed by the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi or someone else but the CBI would have had to run important investigation past the sitting Prime Minister, former CBI director Joginder Singh told Firstpost today. Thereby implying, perhaps, that Rajiv Gandhi would have to have been in the know.

“In the Bofors case, it is on the CBI files and a matter of record that Swedish police head Sten Lindstrom had written to then CBI Director MG Katre in 1987 or 1988, seeking the CBI’s help in the Bofors investigation. Referring to Lindstrom’s letter, Katre had written to the Ministry of Personnel (which was at that time headed by P Chidambaram in his capacity as Minister of State), seeking permission to assist the Swedish investigations. The Ministry of Personnel  had said that the matter was with the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) and therefore the JPC should investigate it. The CBI then did not initiate any investigations,” Joginder Singh told Firstpost.

Asked if Katre had met the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, Singh said that every CBI director had to meet the PM for permissions in important CBI cases.

The CBI had filed an FIR in the Bofors case only on 23 Jan 1990, four years after the kickbacks in the Bofors case were allegedly paid. Parliament had appointed a joint committee to inquire into the Bofors contract on 6 August 1987  (Lok Sabha) and 12 August 1987 (Rajya Sabha).

Sten Lindstrom, the Swedish investigator who blew the whistle on the bribery scandal, had in his interview to investigative journalist Chitra Subramaniam-Duella (in which he identified himself as the whistleblower), claimed that the Indian investigators did not bother meeting him and his Swedish counterparts who had been investigating the gun deal. But Singh said no CBI official ever visited Sweden to investigate the Bofors scandal.

“Perhaps Lindstrom is referring to Indian investigators sent by the JPC. The JPC on 22 December 1987  appointed a team of investigating agencies comprising officials from the CBI, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and the Enforcement Directorate,” Singh said.

This team of investigators was directly responsible for the probe and was reporting to the JPC, he said.

When asked if Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi tried to protect Quattrocchi, who had allegedly taken kickbacks in the Bofors deal, Singh said “There is no conclusive evidence but Sonia Gandhi was close to Ottavio Quattrocchi and the latter had free access to the PM’s residence. Sonia Gandhi had also stayed at Quattrocchi’s house several times. But we can’t say conclusively that they helped Quattrocchi.”

Singh says we can only guess whether the CBI Director then sought permission from Minister of State for Personnel or the Prime Minister to interrogate Quattrrocchi. However, soon after that Quattrrocchi fled the country.

It was extremely difficult to catch him once he fled the country, the former CBI director said.

“The CBI had managed to put Quattrocchi’s bank accounts under freeze in London. But the CBI can’t do anything on its own. Then Minister of Law HR Bhardwaj sent additional solicitor general B Dutta to London where he did not oppose the move to unfreeze Quattrocchi’s bank accounts. Quattrocchi was allowed to walk away with the money at the behest of the Ministry of Law,” Singh said.

On Lindstrom’s claim that Bofors chief Martin Adobo had in his diary  mentioned a meeting between AE official and a Gandhi trustee lawyer in Geneva, hinting that it was a political payment, Singh said there was no Gandhi trustee and the lawyer was a person identified only as Lalchandani.

“We had interrogated him then and we didn’t get any evidence that a political payment was made. In fact, there is no evidence that Rajiv Gandhi or anyone in his family was paid in this gun deal,” Singh said.

The CBI had stopped the investigations in the case against Quattrocchi in March 2011 stating that it had no evidence against him. The trial court had accepted the decision noting that too much money had been spent on the investigations in the case.