web analytics

Something fishy in Bakshi case

Written By: - Date published: 2:00 pm, October 16th, 2009 - 8 comments
Categories: corruption, crime, national - Tags:

Police have ended their investigation in National MP Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s immigration scam after the principal accuser left the country in mysterious circumstances.

In Parliament, Pete Hodgson read a sworn statement by Darshan Singh Saran which says that Bakshi and his associates were involved first in an immigration scam, and then in trying to silence the people ripped off. It’s too long to quote in full here, but the whole thing’s worth a read.

The question now arises over whether Bakshi or any associate had any involvement in making Saran conveniently disappear. The sworn statement raises serious questions about why Saran suddenly went silent.

You may remember that when Bakshi was earlier accused of this scam by Kuldeep Singh, the accusation was mysteriously withdrawn and Immigration’s official investigation “formed an impression that [they] may have been paid off by Bakshi or one of his supporters.” Bakshi’s mafia-like response was: “I did not authorise anybody to act on my behalf. If you have got any wellwisher who can act on your behalf, I can’t say”.

I don’t know why National is shielding this man. There’s a chance for an enterprising investigative journalist to break a huge story here. Bakshi makes Field look like a petty thug.

8 comments on “Something fishy in Bakshi case”

  1. Rex Widerstrom 1

    That’s what commenters from the right didn’t get when complaining about Police inaction on various politically-related issues they felt were scandals, and a point I tried to make with varying degrees of success. It seems they’re starting to understand now, judging by the comments on this issue over at Kiwiblog.

    Unless someone else (usually the media) uncover and make public the facts against an MP accused of wrongdoing to such an extent that no one could see a decision not to prosecute as anything but corrupt, they will not act.

    The reason being that the Police want continual increases in their power, and to build up a sense of reciprocal obligation amongst Parliamentarians for the times when they are found to have acted inappropriately. Can’t go having inquiries into prosecutorial misconduct etc.

    It’s akin to a protection racket, and it needs to end. But it won’t.

    The answer is a Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards, independent from Parliament, with the ability to protect whistleblowers and witnesses and the obligation to make the results of its investigations entirely public.

  2. gingercrush 2

    What about the responsibilities Pete Hodgson has. After all, it was him who set up the meeting and got that sworn statement. It was him who then subsequently read that sworn statement in parliament. For Pete to say at the time this person is no longer silent only for that person to ultimately go silent surely isn’t good enough.

    I have my own concerns about the case and I don’t see why the issue should be closed simply because someone has left the country. Particularly, in this situation where there are accusations of intimidation etc. Clearly, however, the truth never actually mattered to you since you’ve already judged the case. Just because two people say something. Doesn’t mean they’re right or that is what happened.

    • gitmo 2.1

      If there’s any truth to this Hodgson should take a leaf out of Lockwood’s book and dig and dig and dig otherwise it’s all just fluff

    • snoozer 2.2

      I wonder if Bakshi himself was interviewed.

      I think he should make a public statement in relation to these allegations. Outright refuting them or otherwise.

      Farrar’s words were telling because they can be read both ways: ‘How very disappointing that Darsham is not prepared to talk to the Police, to back up his allegations’

    • Craig Glen Eden 2.3

      What reponsibilities does Hodgson have except to hand the statement to the police and to table it in parliment. The member is not in Petes party he is in Donkeys party shouldnt you be directing your indignation at him? By the way Eddie does not say he is guilty just he thinks he is a thug.

  3. sean14 3

    A fuller extract from the article in The Herald:

    “The Immigration Service report on the investigation – obtained under the Official Information Act – says the staff member who tried to interview Kamal Kaur and her husband, Kuldeep Singh, “formed an impression that [they] may have been paid off by Bakshi or one of his supporters”.

    “There is no evidence to support this impression,” the report says.

    Mr Bakshi has claimed he was cleared. But the documents show the file was closed because of “insufficient evidence”.

    Eddie – Very convenient of you to forget to point out the part of the article that says there is no evidence to support the Immigration staff member’s impression.

    No matter that there is insufficient evidence to proceed, Bakshi can be found guilty by innuendo simply because he’s in a political party you don’t like.

    As for this: “Bakshi makes Field look like a petty thug.” Do you have any evidence, or just more innuendo?

    • snoozer 3.1

      The fact that all his accusers keep on mysterious fleeing the country and that Bakshi himself says an associate may have paid them off is a little bit suspicious no?

      As for evidence, there’s the sworn statement from Saran for a start. Remember a police investigation was launched on the strength of that statement and the eariler immigration investigation’s unsatisfactory conclusion but it failed because Saran mysteriously left the country.

      And, don’t you think it’s fair to put a little weight on investigating officers’ impressions?

    • ghostwhowalksnz 3.2

      We have a sworn statement. So a police investigation was begun
      This time the police have ‘closed’ the case ( not cleared Bakshi) because the witness has disappeared.
      Is he six feet under or $50,000 richer . lets investigate

Recent Comments

Recent Posts