The Need for Witness Protection
- Late B Raman never stated that Yakub innocent, he advocated compassion to reciprocate Yakub’s help to Indian agencies.
- Yakub provided valuable intelligence and was given promise of reprieve.
- There is a need to protect genuine witnesses.
- The effort in implementing a fool-proof protection system essential, given the rising crime graph in our country.
The Yakub Memon execution raises several issues pertaining to the administration of criminal justice, apart from the fundamental misgiving over the justification for awarding the death sentence. None of those who pleaded for clemency to Yakub ever took the position that he was innocent. The focus was on the reported assistance he gave to Indian law enforcement officials in unravelling the conspiracy behind the 1993 Mumbai blasts.
There was more than a suggestion that he was betrayed by Indian officials who had promised him a substantial reward for helping them out with missing details. An unpublished column by a dear friend, the late B Raman, an additional secretary in our external intelligence outfit, RAW, was also cited in support of the demand for sparing Yakub’s life.
Conveniently glossed over was the fact that Raman never stated that Yakub was free from criminal liability. He only advocated compassion to reciprocate Yakub’s help to Indian agencies. So, ultimately, all of this boils down to whether Yakub was given unethical inducement. The facts may never be known.