Marina Khodorkovsky’s speech to the Ingodinsky district court (Thursday, 21 August 2008)

Before you reach a decision, a ruling that will affect the future of my son, his family and his parents, I ask for your indulgence.

During one of the hearings, here in this courtroom, a spokesman from the prosecutor’s office presented a testimonial to my son’s character, and I quote: “His personality was defined as a criminal type, one inclined to commit such offences”. I can and must offer a different witness to my son’s character, one that is confirmed by publicly known facts.

For forty years my husband Boris and I worked at the Calibre plant in Moscow. Our son was raised in the nursery and kindergarten near the factory. From childhood he would visit to the plant workshops and see how hard people worked. From his youngest years, therefore, he understood that working people deserve care and attention. A family like ours with two working parents never had a great deal of money but neither did we make it the be all and end all of our lives: neither then nor now is money of great importance in our family. Our son Mikhail inherited that attitude.

He was never work-shy and even when at school would find part-time jobs to earn some extra money. As a student he constantly joined construction teams to all parts of the USSR because he considered such work a valuable contribution to the State. He always asked, “If not I, then who?” All his life since then can be summed up in that response.

Mikhail created the best oil company in Russia. He would work up to 20 hours a day. I can bear witness to the fact. In return for his considerable responsibilities for a workforce of many thousands, naturally, he received a decent salary. Yet as people say of Khodorkovsky, he wasn’t a true oligarch. He did not spend the money he earned on villas, on skiing trips to Courchevel and on yachts. His accumulated wealth was devoted to educational projects. I think everyone knows of the programmes run by the Open Russia foundation. Hundreds, if not thousands, of teachers across Russia received training, learning to use the Internet and other new educational technologies. Rural schools were provided with computers and, so far as I know, this also extended to colonies for juvenile offenders.

For the last 15 years Mikhail has used his money to support a boarding school, the Podmoskovny Lyceum. Abandoned and orphaned children are brought up there, together with children from poor families or those with only one parent, the children of border guards (who for reasons of their work cannot look after their children themselves) and also the small victims of such tragedies as the Moscow and Volgodonsk apartment bombings, the Nord Ost theatre siege and the school siege in Beslan. When I return to the school we shall be taking in children from South Ossetia.

At the boarding school children are brought up to love their country. The motto of the Podmoskovny Lyceum, which may read over the entrance, is: Duty, Honesty and the Fatherland”. Our schoolchildren constantly write to Mikhail. Those who graduated from the Lyceum this July wrote him a letter. Let me read an excerpt: “We are proud to have received at your school an excellent start in life. We promise to do all we can to make Russia a truly great country.” Many of the children, after leaving the school, study further and then work in various sectors of the Russian economy. Those who have chosen to attend a military academy after the Lyceum now serve in our armed forces.

There are presently 180 pupils at the school. The original intention was to provide education for up to 1,100 children. Unfortunately, the man who was the school’s sponsor is imprisoned here. Today my husband and I run the Lyceum.

And now I would like to say a few words, not as a mother but as a citizen of Russia. Even spokesmen for the prosecutor’s office admitted, within these four walls, that our son is a man of considerable intellect, and combines exceptional ability and talent. All these qualities, given by nature or by God, he might be applying in his own country and he would like to do so. He did not remain abroad though he could have done so: foreseeing the danger that threatened him here, he nevertheless returned to Russia. This begs the question, “What sense does it make for the State to keep him here in isolation?” And leads me to pose another question: “Who benefits from his continued incarceration?”

I would like to say that Mikhail is a good citizen, and a good father, husband and son. Undoubtedly, he will again find his place in society. His family, his parents and his home are all waiting, of course, for his return. We shall cope with everything that needs to be done when he comes home. There are a great many simple domestic and family matters that we must deal with together. You may have no doubt that we as a family will do everything that lies within our powers.

Finally, let me say that my husband Boris is 75 years old; I am 74. Your decision will decide whether we see our son again in this life or not.

Thank you for your attention.