Two judges have said that the director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) capitulated to threats from the Saudi royal family over the deals with Europe's biggest defence company, BAE Systems.
One of them said no one is allowed to interfere with justice in this country. The Reuters story linked to above goes on:
"The law is powerless to resist the specific and, as it turns out, successful attempt by a foreign government to pervert the course of justice in the United Kingdom," [Lord Justice] Moses said.
Two anti-arms trade campaigners had said there was "very large scale bribery" of senior Saudi Arabian officials by the arms manufacturer over the state-to-state Al Yamamah deal and said the probe was halted after the threats.
"That threat was intended to prevent the [Serious Fraud Office] director from pursuing the course of investigation he had chosen to adopt. It achieved its purpose," Moses said.
The minutiae of this case will be picked over during the next few days, but it brings to mind another instance of Saudi meddling in Britain's affairs (cultural in this case). It happened in 1980, when a drama documentary called Death of a Princess was shown. It was a fictionalised account, but based on fact, it's believed, of how a Saudi princess was executed in public after daring to fall in love.
There's interesting reading here, here and here – the last being a typescript of a programme that went out in the States, incorporating that film. And you can read more on the BAE shenanigans here with a useful Q&A here (both on the BBC site).
The reason for Saudi interference back then was that the seventh-century "culture" they call Islam was being questioned. Muslims don't like that. Not a bit. As the Wikipedia entry linked to above has it, the film showed "facets of Islamic tradition, custom, society, gender and social roles, sexuality, politics, myth, and identity". This time it's more about money, because the Saudi royals, who are dripping in obscene amounts of dosh, seem not to want any scrutiny of Swiss bank accounts.
Can't think why.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.