Even After Congress Expels Rahul Mamkoottathil, Shafi Parambil Continues to Shield Him

Palakkad: Congress MP Shafi Parambil told the media that he had not received any complaint about criminal offences involving Rahul Mamkoottathil, nor had anyone approached him seeking action. He made this remark shortly after the Thiruvananthapuram District Sessions Court rejected Mamkoottathil’s bail application.

His claim, however, has raised fresh questions, particularly because his own party colleague M A Shahanas had earlier stated on Facebook that she had verbally informed Shafi about concerns regarding Mamkoottathil’s predatory behaviour. She maintained that she had specifically urged him not to support Mamkoottathil’s elevation as Youth Congress president, citing serious allegations she had heard from multiple sources and from her own experience.

Despite Congress now expelling Mamkoottathil, Shafi’s comments continue to give the impression that he is cushioning the fallout for him. He even defended the party by arguing that no political organisation has taken such exemplary action against an accused individual, and that Congress removed Mamkoottathil from the Youth Congress presidency despite not having received a formal complaint at the time. According to Shafi, the subsequent suspension from party membership and removal from the parliamentary party were further steps taken once the allegations surfaced.

Shafi insisted that he holds no personal stance separate from the party line. He emphasised that he is a Congress worker and that no one, including himself, has deviated from the KPCC’s decisions. He maintained that his past support for Mamkoottathil was purely organisational, rooted in the usual practice of encouraging young party workers, and not due to personal closeness or endorsement of any alleged behaviour. He reiterated that he had provided only political backing, not support for any personal actions.

Yet his remarks, coming even after the court rejected Mamkoottathil’s bail and the party formally removed him, have fuelled criticism that Shafi continues to extend a protective shield. Instead of confronting the deeper issue of why warnings from within his own party were not acted upon earlier, he appears more focused on defending the party’s procedural response.