The drama behind Swapna Suresh’s audio clip alleging coercion from the Enforcement Directorate to name Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan seems to be unfolding now. In the latest interrogation with the Customs agency, Swapna, who is one of the prime accused in the gold smuggling case, has admitted that the voice in the clip belongs to her and that the plan was formed by a Special Branch officer, reportedly under the aegis of unknown higher powers.
The central agencies had been probing the origin of the audio clip alongside the jail officials’ investigation. The South Zone Prisons DIG’s probe revealed that the audio did not originate from the Attakulangara Prison where she was lodged, but admitted that it did belong to Swapna. However, taking into consideration of this, the central agencies found that the audio clip was a call recording.
The central agencies probing the matter indicate that the audio clip’s purpose was to drag the gold smuggling investigation into political controversies
The central agencies’ further investigation revealed that the recording was made on August 6, when Swapna was under ED custody in Kochi. Five female police officers were deployed for Swapna’s protection, and according to sources, one among the five with left leanings helped make the setting for the phone call. Reportedly, after telling Swapan what to say, the officer called the Special Branch officer and gave the phone to Swapna. The phone call was recorded and released to an online portal on November 18.
However, some aspects of the case are still unclear, like whether the female police officer had used her mobile for the purpose or not. Moreover, the agencies clarify that the audio clip’s purpose was to drag the gold smuggling investigation into political controversies. Meanwhile, ED officials have landed in Thiruvananthapuram to question Swapna and the other prime accused PS Sarith, with permission from the Court. The ED is allowed to question the accused for three days from 10 am to 4 pm at the jail premises. However, the Court has mandated that the agency should not resort to mental harassment in the name of questioning.
