The Litvinenko Inquiry

Part 4 | Chapters 1 to 6 | Why would anyone wish to kill Alexander Litvinenko?
November 1998 press conference, 6 and that the prosecutor, Mr Barsukov, told Marina
Litvinenko that the charges he was bringing against Mr Litvinenko were a response to
the press conference (see paragraph 3.68 above).
4.11 Marina Litvinenko’s evidence was that the decision that she and her husband made to
leave Russia was based in part on a fear that the FSB retribution against Mr Litvinenko
for what it regarded as his act of betrayal would end either in his indefinite detention
or, worse, in his death. I have referred to Mr Felshtinsky’s evidence that General
Kokholkhov told him in May 2000 that if he came across Mr Litvinenko in a dark
corner, “he would kill him with his own hands” (see paragraph 3.76 above).
4.12 The evidence suggests that Mr Litvinenko’s flight from Russia did not soften in any
way the FSB’s view of him. During the course of his interviews with Detective Inspector
(DI) Hyatt, Mr Litvinenko described a phone call that he had received on his mobile
telephone from his former URPO colleague Mr Ponkin. He said that he had received
the call in April or May 2001 (i.e. a few months after his arrival in the UK), whilst
visiting Mr Bukovsky at his home. Mr Litvinenko recalled that Mr Ponkin had said that
he had just been questioned at the Military Prosecutor’s Office by Mr Barsukov. He
told DI Hyatt:
“Ponkin said that Barsukov asked him to give me a message that I should as soon
as possible return to my country by myself, and then nothing will happen to me.
And if you do not return yourself then you will either be brought back in a body bag,
or you will be pushed under the train. And he also asked to tell me that… my wife
Marina shouldn’t be afraid of anything and she could travel freely, no one will touch
her. I replied to Ponkin that this is very nice offer but I refuse it… that conversation
I straight away re-told to Mr Bukovsky.” 7
4.13 When he gave oral evidence to me, Mr Bukovsky recalled what sounded very much
like the same incident. He described Mr Litvinenko receiving a call from “some former
colleague from Lubyanka” whilst visiting him at his home in around 2002 “very soon
after… his escape.” He said that Mr Litvinenko had become “rather gloomy” as the
call went on, and he had inferred from hearing one side of the conversation that
Mr Litvinenko was being threatened. He recalled that, when the telephone conversation
had finished, Mr Litvinenko recounted to him the substance of the call in the following
terms, “do you feel safe, secure in Britain; come on, remember Trotsky”. 8
4.14 A continuing interest in Mr Litvinenko on the part of the Russian authorities may also
perhaps be evidenced by the continuation (indeed, it appears the escalation) of the
criminal proceedings against him in Russia following his departure. I admitted into
evidence a letter dated 3 May 2002 sent by Mr Litvinenko’s Russian lawyer, named
Mr Marov, to Mr Menzies, the British lawyer assisting Mr Litvinenko with his asylum
claim. 9 Mr Marov’s letter indicated that a further (i.e. a fourth) set of proceedings had
been instituted against Mr Litvinenko, and that the prosecutor wished to proceed with
a trial in Mr Litvinenko’s absence. The letter also cited a number of what were said to
be instances of lack of due process on the part of the prosecutor. I am aware that the
ongoing proceedings against Mr Litvinenko in Russia gave rise to at least one attempt
on the part of the Russian authorities to secure his extradition. Unsurprisingly given
Mr Litvinenko’s successful asylum claim, the request was not granted. Mrs Litvinenko
6
INQ017734 (page 10, paragraph 34); Marina Litvinenko 3/137 lines 4-11
7
INQ016642 (page 7)
8
Bukovsky 26/95-96
9
HMG000078
53