The North Goa Sessions Court acquitted Minister Mauvin Godinho in the infamous 1998 power rebate case, sparing him from some serious consequences, likely those that would have forced him to step down from the Pramod Sawant-led government. The acquittal now becomes a pivotal moment for both him and the government as a whole.
This case, based on accusations of providing illegal rebates in 1998, allegedly caused a loss of Rs 4.52 crore to the state exchequer, has represented the lengthy and often contentious conflict between political opponents, with the opposition, spearheaded by the late Manohar Parrikar, charging the minister with impropriety and corruption and later terming it as “an attempt to scam”. The fact that this matter has lasted for 27 years highlights the intricate nature of political accountability, where legal proceedings frequently become arenas for political narratives.
Following nearly thirty years of legal struggles, this ruling not only offers personal relief for Godinho but also prompts critical questions regarding the government’s actions, both past and future. The acquittal, pronounced by the North Goa Sessions Court, indicates that the evidence was inadequate to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The interesting part is that Godinho had earlier challenged the chargesheet against him before the High Court's Goa bench and later at the Supreme Court. Both courts upheld the charges, ruling there was sufficient evidence for the trial to proceed. This reflects that the legal procedure was initiated and upheld within constitutional limits, underscoring that the matter was not simply a political vendetta but grounded in substantive legal issues.
The question is whether the prosecution was serious enough in pursuing the case that it could not prove the charges. Now, will it accept the court’s ruling and bury the case in alignment with the government’s political interests, or will it seek to challenge the acquittal in higher courts, in line with the legal trajectory? The government’s response to this ruling will be a crucial indicator of its stance on accountability. A clean chit could reinforce the perception that “washing machine” politics is prevalent in the current administration, with tainted legislators finding ways to clear their names within the BJP framework.
The irony is that Godinho has been a high-ranking minister in the Sawant cabinet, besides being a protocol minister. Morally and ethically, a legislator against whom the State is fighting a legal battle, especially that of corruption, should not be holding the public office of a minister because the proceedings by themselves reflect a point of “no confidence”. Perhaps it is the politics of convenience that is seen as the order of the day.
The government confronts a moral and political quandary. The case illustrates the complex relationships between law, politics, and public perception. Whether the government opts to honour the judiciary’s ruling or contests it, the path it chooses will showcase its fundamental priorities — justice, political expediency, or reputation management. For Godinho, the acquittal offers a moment for introspection regarding accountability, and for the government, it presents a chance to affirm its commitment to the law. And a stray thought — this could be a moment where a government tied with political compulsions and obligations could seize an opening they were looking for.
