Two political leaders - former American president Donald Trump and serving Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan – were pulled dangerously close to the mouth of the black hole called political oblivion on March 31 by perhaps the least severe of the charges they have faced in their political careers.
Both involved the payment of money.
One presumably to buy the silence of a former lover, an adult movie star, during the 2016 US presidential elections. And the other as financial support to the families of deceased LDF leaders and a civil police officer who lost his life while doing escort duty for then CPM State secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan.
While Trump's payment was a personal decision, supposedly the fallout of a private indiscretion, the payment from the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF) was the collective decision of the cabinet. But at the moment, Pinarayi is the sole accused as he is the only person among the 18 accused - the entire cabinet of the first Pinarayi ministry and the then Chief Secretary - who is still in authority.
Trump was indicted. Pinarayi was let off the hook, even if only for now because there was a disagreement between judges. The indictment and the temporary relief were handed out on March 31.
Untouched by bombs, felled by pellets
Far graver charges have been hurled at both leaders, but nothing seems to have stuck till now.
In the case of Trump, there is his collusion with Russia to subvert the 2016 American presidential polls, the January 2021 Capitol Hill insurrection that his incendiary comments had allegedly provoked after he lost the election to Joe Biden, his attempts to tamper with the vote in Georgia state, and the innumerable charges of tax evasion.
Against Pinarayi, too, there were many: the SNC Lavalin kickback, the gold smuggling scandal, the e-mobility deal with the Swiss company HESS, the Sprinklr agreement, and the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) connection.
Compared to the high-calibre artillery ranged against them, what finally came close to rattling the two powerful leaders seemed to come from toy guns.
Trump's, on the face of it, was a private indiscretion that innumerable American presidents have been accused of. Pinarayi's can be seen as an act of kindness.
Trump is alone, not Pinarayi
Nonetheless, Trump has still not admitted that he had paid any "hush money". On the other hand, the payment from the CMDRF was publicly announced as a cabinet decision.
Trump's indictment is unprecedented. It would not have been the case if Pinarayi was given a guilty verdict.
Trump will go down in American history as the first-ever American president to be indicted by a grand jury. But if the Lok Ayukta was against Pinarayi, he would not have been the first chief minister in the country to step down in the wake of a Lok Ayukta verdict. In 2011, Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddiyurappa had to resign after the Karnataka Lok Ayukta exposed his role in illegal mining.
Pinarayi's narrow escape
Trump might have been indicted but if at all he is to be convicted of the alleged crime he would first have to go through a long trial process. The Manhattan grand jury only said that there was enough material to prosecute him.
At this stage, the worst that could happen to Trump is that he will have to stand in the witness box. There is no bar on him to run for presidency during the trial.
.jpg.transform/576x300/image.jpg "Pinarayi Vijayan | File Photo: Manorama")
Pinarayi but had a very close shave. The Pinarayi case had reached where the Trump case has reached now way back on January 14, 2021, when a full bench of the Lok Ayukta had agreed upon the admissibility of the charges.
On March 31, if there was an adverse comment, Pinarayi Vijayan would have had no choice but to step down as Chief Minister. It could have been the end of his political career.
Under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, the recommendations of the Lok Ayukta were binding. K T Jaleel, for instance, had to resign as higher education minister when the Lok Ayukta had in 2020 found merit in the nepotism charge against him. Even the High Court did not come to his aid.
In an attempt to clip what was called the Lok Ayukta's "excessive powers", the LDF government passed an amendment in August 2022 making the Lok Ayukta recommendations non-binding. Governor Arif Mohammad Khan has still not given his assent to the amendment Bill and, therefore, the original Act stays.
Stormy money trail
In both cases, there is one indisputable fact. Money has been paid.
In Trump's case, there is proof that $130,000 has gone from President Trump's personal bank accounts to Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer.
Cohen, in turn, testified under oath before the Manhattan District Attorney court that this money was reimbursement for what he had paid from his pocket to Stormy Daniels to hush up the former porn star who getting ready to spill the beans about her once supposedly 'stormy' affair with candidate Trump.
Cohen made the payment in 2016, during the American presidential campaign. The speculation is that the Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg has equated the 'hush money' with campaign expenses. It is, after all, money spent to black out all unseemly and shameful news about Trump and further his chances against Biden in 2016.
However, in Trump's accounts, the money paid to Cohen is shown as legal expenses. This, if Cohen's testimony is believed, is a falsification of business records, which in the state of New York is a crime.
This allows the Manhattan district attorney (DA) to link Trump to a second and a more serious crime, which is that he was using this falsely recorded expenditure to cover up a campaign finance crime.
The Manhattan DA, according to top American newspapers including New York Times and Washington Post, has argued that the money Cohen paid Stormy Daniels to duct-tape her lips was for all practical purposes a campaign contribution as it directly benefited Trump's campaign.
If this indeed was a campaign contribution it was not recorded as such, which is yet another felony. Moreover, the $130,000 was far in excess of the contribution limits set by the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Pinarayi's non-hush money
Pinarayi's case is not as complicated, and the payout was not apparently to secure any political gain. These contributions were not kept hushed either.
A total of Rs 25 lakh was paid to the family of Nationalist Congress Party leader Uzhavoor Vijayan who died on July 23, 2017; Rs 5 lakh for his treatment and Rs 20 lakh for the education of his children.
The family of former Chengannur MLA and CPM leader K K Ramachandran Nair, who died on January 14, 2018, was sanctioned Rs 8.66 lakh for settling the loans the late MLA had taken from banks. The legal heirs of P Praveen, a civil police officer who died in an accident while escorting Kodiyeri Balakrishnan on September 10, 2017, were given Rs 20 lakh.
The petitioner, R S Sasikumar, called this nepotism and favouritism. "The CMDRF guidelines clearly say that the money could be given to deserving families and individuals. It is not stated anywhere that it should be given only to people below the poverty line. No one can find fault with the three choices made by the government," a top government official told Onmanorama.
Even then, just like Trump, Pinarayi has also questioned the competence of the prosecuting body. According to the Kerala government, the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction over a decision taken collectively by the Cabinet.
As for Trump, he argued that he could not be prosecuted for federal campaign violations in a state (New York) court.
What's next for Trump and Vijayan?
Nonetheless, it is by now clear that Trump will have to face a trial in the Manhattan court. It might take over a year for the court to come to a decision. The DA will rely mostly on the testimony of Cohen. This can be to Trump's advantage as Cohen has served time in prison and has pleaded guilty to several crimes not associated with Trump. He is as unreliable a witness as there can be.
The Pinarayi case has now gone to the full bench of the Lok Ayukta. If the Governor gives his assent to the Lok Ayukta amendment, which makes the Lok Ayukta's verdict non-binding, Pinarayi will remain insulated even if the full bench indicts him. However, the petitioner in the case has decided to move the High Court.
