The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
Chapter 2: Enemy of the Russian State?
4.3 On 24 November 2006, the day after Mr Litvinenko’s death, Sergey Abeltsev, a
member of the Russian State Duma, made a speech on the floor of the Duma in
which he said:
“Last night Alexander Litvinenko died in a London hospital. The deserved
punishment reached the traitor. I am confident that this terrible death will be a
serious warning to traitors of all colours wherever they are located. In Russia, they
do not pardon treachery.” 1
4.4 On the same day, President Putin made comments to the media about Mr Litvinenko’s
death with what Professor Service described as, “a verbal levity that border[ed] on the
macabre”. For example, President Putin observed that, “the people that have done
this are not God, and Mr Litvinenko is, unfortunately, not Lazarus.” 2
4.5 Mr Abeltsev is a member of the Liberal Democratic Party in Russia. The leader of
that party, Vladimir Zhironovsky, described Mr Litvinenko following his death as a
“scoundrel” and a “traitor” and suggested that he had been killed by MI6 on behalf of
the FSB. 3
4.6 During a radio interview in February 2007, Mr Gusak, Mr Litvinenko’s former colleague
in the FSB, expressed the view that Mr Litvinenko had deserved to be executed. 4
4.7 The language that I have quoted in these paragraphs is couched in the strongest
terms. But it appears that, although extreme, such language does not misrepresent
the way in which a section, at least, of the Russian people and government regarded
Mr Litvinenko. Professor Service, who approached his analysis of these matters with
commendable caution, gave oral evidence to the effect that, by the time of his death,
Mr Litvinenko had come to be regarded as an enemy of the Russian State. 5
4.8 What was it that Mr Litvinenko had done to earn such posthumous opprobrium?
Perceived betrayal of the FSB
4.9 There is strong evidence that Mr Litvinenko was regarded by those within the FSB as
someone who had betrayed that organisation.
4.10 The starting point is the sequence of events that culminated in the November 1998 press
conference. As I have described above, (see paragraph 3.60 – 3.62) Mr Litvinenko’s
escalating protest against what he regarded as the unlawful orders that he and his
colleagues in the Department for the Investigation and Prevention of Organised Crime
(URPO) had been given, was challenged at every stage by his superiors. There is
evidence that Mr Kovalyev, the Head of the FSB, regarded Mr Litvinenko’s actions in
telling Mr Berezovsky of the order that he claimed to have received to kill him as a,
“betrayal of the interests of the security services” (see paragraph 3.52 above). I also
heard evidence that Mr Putin, Mr Kovalyev’s successor as head of the FSB, publicly
criticised Mr Litvinenko and his colleagues for going public with their allegations at the
1
Goldfarb 26/123; Emmerson 1/147
2
INQ019146 (page 14-15 paragraph 45)
3
HMG000358 (page 3)
4
HMG000353
5
Service 28/71 lines 1-4
52