Thiruvananthapuram: The final sitting of the Vizhinjnjam Judicial Commission went off, presenting to the society a strange feature of the main complainants, including top leaders and political parties, turning their back to the proceedings.
The LDF government appointed the Commission on 18 July 2017 to identify those responsible for the irregularities detected by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the Vizhinjam port contract. The allegation raised by the current chief minister, and then CPM state secretary, Pinarayi Vijayan was regarding corruption to the tune of Rs 6,000 crore. Other political leaders including VS Achuthanandan, Kanam Rajendran, Kodiyeri Balakrishnan and VM Sudheeran had either raised corruption charges or suspicions. But till the final sitting, these leaders or any one representing their parties, did not appear before the Commission.
The Commissionhad a total of 26 sittings between Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi, the final one being on 26 July. It has announced that its work will be closed on 14 August and now will entertain only for written submissions.
The ones who made depositions and argued by themselves against the agreement are AJ Vijayan, Joseph Mathre, AAP leader CR Neelakantan. On behalfof PC George, his son appeared just for one day.
Former chief minister Oommen Chandy and former minister K Babu were represented by their lawyers. Former Principal Secretary James Varghese argued by himself. Elias John, who supported the project, demanded a sitting in Thiruvananthapuram, but when that sitting was arranged, he did not show up either. Six others filed statements.
In the meantime, the government amended the terms of reference of the Commission that gave scope for the Commission to examine the findings of C&AG, which was one of the demands raised by Oommen Chandy who had contended that the C&AG findings were wrong. The Commission also witnessed the confirmation by former Advisor to the Central Planning Commission, Gajendra Haldia that, the agreement contained the provision that even when Adani leaves after completing the term as per the contract, the company is entitled to termination fee.
The Commission is empowered to appoint a enquiry agency and appoint officials, as per the Commissions of Enquiry Act clause 5(a). But the Commission was not prepared to do that. Finally, an order was passed on the demand by AJ Vijayan, the agency was not formed.
If an enquiry agency had been formed, the inside transactions of the contract, which has international dimensions, could have been scrutinized. The two international companies that had participated in the bidding had ignored the order to appear before the Commission. Although, they could have been summoned, that did not happen.