Donation scandal could be Blair's Watergate

This could never happen in Sri Lanka. Well, perhaps I should qualify that. It could happen, of course. But then, only in one's dreams. That way one could at least derive some vicarious satisfaction.

The British Police have once again proved that nobody is above the law and the rule of law will apply equally to prime minister and pauper.

Scotland Yard investigating allegations that national honours such as knighthoods and peerages were to be granted for huge cash donations to political parties, interviewed Prime Minister Tony Blair for the second time in a couple of months. He was questioned about what he knew, if anything at all, about moves by members of his staff at No 10 Downing Street and his close friend and fund raiser Lord Levy to do deals with rich supporters or entrepreneurs to give them peerages if they contributed to the Labour Party funds.

It would indeed be a brave police officer in Sri Lanka who even thinks of interviewing the president, prime minister, cabinet minister or for that matter, a party hack over allegations of fraud, corruption or dealings of a dubious nature.

Well if it is not a brave officer, certainly one who has lost his marbles. That officer's chances of survival in our politically driven and partisan jungle of Sri Lanka would be as slim as those of some endangered species on this planet.

In our lopsided world, political big wigs and their cronies are above and beyond the law. They are today's untouchables. That is why corruption and fraud at the highest levels of our political and business worlds go unchallenged and unpunished.

Still, we boast of thousands of years of civilisation and a rich cultural heritage, looking down on those in the West who we perceive as having acquired the trappings of civilised conduct relatively recently.
We gloat over the past not only because our ancient civilisation has something to be proud about. It also provides a convenient cover for the sins of the present.

It is the large tent under which we stack our dirty laundry, away from public gaze. What has been happening in Britain since an MP of the Scottish National Party complained that honours were being sold in violation of the country's laws, is a salutary lesson for countries in which corruption is rife and state institutions have been turned into willing tools of official harassment and political victimisation.

Acting on the complaint, the police launched an inquiry more than 10 months ago. Then last July, the investigators arrested Lord Levy, Prime Minister Tony Blair's close buddy and tennis partner who he had appointed as special envoy to the Middle East.

Lord Levy was released on bail. That arrest led political commentators and observers to say that the investigation was getting perilously close to Blair himself and his Downing Street office.

The allegation was that the Labour Party had received funds from some rich individuals prior to the last election and that the payback was last year when some of them were nominated for honours.

Under Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act of 2000 introduced by the Blair government itself, donating money to political parties in exchange for honours is a criminal offence.

Five months after Lord Levy's arrest Blair himself was questioned by the police as anticipated. But unlike Levy, the prime minister was not questioned under caution which meant that there was no immediate prospect of his being charged immediately, though the possibility that it could be done at some future date was not ruled out.

Since the initial arrest of Des Smith, a government education adviser and a head teacher last April two others have been arrested besides Lord Levy.

One is biotechnology millionaire businessman and a Labour Party donor Sir Christopher Evans last September and Ruth Turner, Tony Blair's director of government relations, who was arrested at her home at four one morning last month.

Sir Christopher who denies any wrongdoing had made a £1million loan to Labour. After being bailed without charge he said he was "extremely shocked and dismayed."

Blair immediately came to Ruth Turner's defence after the arrest saying that he had full confidence in her. She became involved in the inquiry when it emerged that the police were questioning her about emails which discussed who was going to be placed on the prime minister's list to the Lords appointments committee.

Several others close to Blair including his chief of staff Jonathan Powell have been questioned. Some 90 persons from all parties have been questioned by Scotland Yard's deputy assistance commissioner David Yates who is heading the inquiry.

The fact that Prime Minister Blair was questioned two Fridays ago before he left for the world economic summit in Davos, Switzerland, was kept a closely-guarded secret until the media broke the story last Thursday.

Apparently the police did not want the story to leak until they were able to question Lord Levy once again which they did last week.

It seems the inquiry is now entering another phase. The police seem to believe that some internal No 10 Downing Street emails that were exchanged in a very secret and unbreakable network system that appears to have been obtained from the Israelis, have been destroyed. They seem to believe that these emails, some of them in coded letters with "K" standing for knighthood and "P" for peerage, have been deliberately eliminated when the police inquiry was getting close to the Blair office.

All this of course is speculation at the moment. But if any of this establishes a prima facie case, the Crown Prosecution Service will have to decide whether to file charges and against whom.

This could well prove to be Blair's Watergate and in the sunset days of his premiership it is something both Blair and the Labour Party could well do without.

All this has been possible only because the police were allowed to do their job and without fear and favour and were determined to do so.

Would any institution in Sri Lanka undertake such a task? Rather, would any be allowed to do so, even if it had the will?