Heated debates over the unexplained wealth orders

So the almost dovish tone adopted by MPs from both sides of the National Assembly on Friday, during debates on the motion of the Prime Minister on the “Report of the Select Committee on the Live Broadcasting of the Proceedings of the House and Matters Ancillary Thereto” was short-lived. The first reading of the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill by the Minister of Financial Services, Good Governance and Institutional Reforms, Mr. Roshi Bhadain, at the National Assembly on Tuesday has triggered another general outcry, first from opposition parties, namely the Mouvement Militant Mauricien( MMM) and the Mauritius Labour Party (MLP), and from the members of the legal profession. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Paul Bérenger, has termed this bill as “being scary and very dangerous” while the Labour Party consider this proposed piece of legislation to “further the climate of fear which is currently prevailing in the country”. On the other hand, the president of the Mauritius Bar Council Me. Antoine Domaingue, Senior Counsel, has called the bill as being a “constitutional blackmail”. It must be underlined that the following bills, namely the Constitution (Amendment) Bill presented for first reading by the Prime Minister Sir Anerood Jugnauth, the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill and the Asset Recovery (Amendment) Bill presented for first reading by the Minister of Financial Services, Good Governance and Institutional Reforms, Mr. Roshi Bhadain, go hand in hand to meet the set objectives of the government. The objectives of the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill and the Asset Recovery (Amendment) Bill are “to promote a culture of good governance and integrity reporting in Mauritius; to stimulate integrity reporting in the public and private sectors; to encourage positive reports of acts of good governance and integrity; to disclose malpractices and recover unexplained wealth; and to protect and reward persons making disclosures and reports”. At face value, the move of the government tends to look plausible and driven by good faith. However, a closer look at, for instance the proposed amendment to the Constitution, sends chills down the spine. We can hardly believe that someone with a political tract record like Sir Anerood Jugnauth, coupled with his experience as a lawyer, can come forward with such a constitutional amendment that can open the floodgates to all sorts of abuses. The explanatory memorandum of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill is as follows: “ The object of this Bill is to amend the Constitution to provide for the taking of possession of property (a) under the ownership of a person to an extent which is disproportionate to his emoluments and other income; (b) the ownership,  possession custody or control of which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for by the person who owns, possesses, has custody or control of the property; or (c) held by a person for another person to an extent which is disproportionate to the emoluments or other income of that other person, by way of confiscation. When we all know that section 8 of our Constitution is devoted to the “protection from deprivation of property” with the various exceptions, of course, we tend to believe that the Constitutional safety net is getting less protective. Now the explanatory memorandum to the Asset Recovery (Amendment) Bill is even a greater source of concern. “The main object of this Bill is to amend the Asset Recovery Act to provide that the Enforcement Authority shall, instead of the Director of Public Prosecutions, be the Financial Intelligence Unit which shall take over the functions and powers conferred on the Director of Public Prosecutions by virtue of the Asset Recovery Act”. In clear, the Financial Crime Commission will absorb the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC), the Financial Intelligence Unit, the Asset Recovery Unit, the Financial Services Commission and the Financial Reporting Council. The Integrity Reporting Services Agency, as proposed to be set up if the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill is voted, “shall be managed by a Director who shall be a professional accountant or law practitioner with substantial post qualification and managerial experience, to be appointed, subject to the approval of the Prime Minister, by the Minister on such contractual terms and conditions as he may determine”. In the case of the Integrity Reporting Board, which is also to be set up in the event that the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill is voted, there shall be “a Chairperson, who shall be a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of Mauritius or of any other Commonwealth State, to be appointed by the Prime Minister; and (b) 2 other members who shall be persons having sufficient knowledge and experience in the field of law, accountancy, finance, financial services, public administration, economics or fraud detection, to be appointed by the Minister, on such terms and conditions as the Prime Minister may determine”. So, one needs not be a Constitutional expert to understand that the National Assembly is being called upon to create a super monster that will be manned by Mr. Roshi Bhadain. Going by the statement to the press by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism and External Communications, Mr Xavier-Luc Duval on Wednesday, it would appear that the PMSD will vote for the various amendments and bills. Quite surprising for a party that has always been quite principled regarding fundamental rights! With a total of 51 MPs, the Alliance Lepep government will still require the support of either Rodriguan MPs or MPs from the Mouvement Patriotique (MP) to be able to get the required three-quarter majority at the National Assembly. Minister Bhadain has kicked off an explanation campaign on the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill. On Thursday, he intervened live on Radio Plus. He is maintaining that the bill is a game changer and creates a platform for transparency and good governance. The president of the Mauritius Bar Council, Me Antoine Domaingue insists that there are three fundamental questions that need to be addressed: the retroactivity of seven years of the bill, the presumption of innocence and the right to silence as guaranteed by the Constitution. Again, one does not need to be an expert in legal matters or a political pundit to understand the real motives behind these “unexplained wealth orders” and the proposed amendment to the Constitution are either to better frame the former Prime Minister Dr. Navin Ramgoolam and to protect the government in its handling of the BAI file. The government might face difficulties in justifying its decisions regarding the BAI file whenever the court case initiated by the former Chairman Emeritus of BAI Mr. Dawood Rawat will be taken in court. If the government was really interested in tracking down unexplained wealth, the retroactivity of the bills should have been furthered up and extended to the coffers of all political parties, without exception. Nobody is against the tracking down of ill-gotten wealth but creating such a powerful agency to be left in the hands of  politicians will certainly lead to abuses.