The Left parties on Friday said fresh claims made by an Indian envoy in the Iraqi oil-for-food scam should be taken cognizance of by the Justice R S Pathak Inquiry Authority and the Enforcement Directorate, but the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Opposition should not be allowed to disrupt Parliamentary proceedings on a regular basis.
Castigating the BJP for blocking proceedings in both Houses of Parliament, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) leaders Nilotpal Basu and Rupchand Pal asked whether any FIR was lodged when the entire nation saw then BJP President Bangaru Laxman receiving money.
Why the Iraq report is so explosive
"We are not defending anyone in this (oil-for-food scam) case. But Paul Volcker has himself said that the materials on which his report was based were unverified. Can we hold anyone guilty at this stage? Let the enquiry (by Justice Pathak) be over," Basu noted.
Pal and Basu said Indian Ambassador to Croatia Anil Mathrani should testify before the Pathak panel and it is for the inquiry committee to take cognizance and decide on its authenticity.
Asked whether Congress President Sonia Gandhi [Images] should resign following the charges as was being demanded by BJP, Basu said, "There is absolutely no sense in the demand when Volcker himself says the materials used for his report are unverified."
CPI leader Gurudas Dasgupta said that the government should convene an all-party meeting and make a coordinated move to protect the rules and procedures of Parliament to prevent BJP from disrupting proceedings on a regular basis.
Observing that they were not sitting on a judgement on Mathrani's claims, CPI(M) leaders Basu and Pal said, he, as an
Ambassador and a government employee, should also have communicated to the government if he had any knowledge about the scam.
He should, therefore, depose before the Pathak probe panel to authenticate his claims.
Complete Coverage: The Volcker Report
© Copyright 2008 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent.
|