Private Notice Question: Alvaro Sobrinho ignites Parliament

The PNQ on Tuesday in the National Assembly was centred on Angolan businessman Alvaro Sobrinho. In his reply, the Prime Minister, Mr Pravind Jugnauth, argued that there was no political interference and that all procedures were followed.

This week's Private Notice Question (PNQ) was exceptional in the sense that the time allowed for this exercise was 55 minutes instead of the usual 30 minutes. Throughout the debate, tensions reigned in the House. The Speaker had to make use of her authority on many occasions to calm the ardour of Members of Parliament.

Alvaro Sobrinho, an Angolan businessman who has been in the limelight for all the wrong reasons during the past few weeks, has had the merit of unleashing the passions of MPs. During his initial response to the PNQ, Pravind Jugnauth tried to persuade the House that there were no valid reasons which would have prevented Mr Sobrinho from obtaining the four licenses issued to him by the Financial Services Commission (FSC) from August 28, 2015 to November 25, 2016.

"The FSC has done its job independently," reassured the Prime Minister. The FSC, the Financial Intelligence Unit and the commercial banks all conducted their small investigation into Alvaro Sobrinho, but "nothing was found against this gentleman," said Pravind Jugnauth in his reply to the leader of the opposition Xavier-Luc Duval.

At the beginning of the PNQ, the head of government stated that he welcomes this question because "there are so many perceptions and bad perceptions; value judgments, innuendos and so much information and misinformation that have been published in the media and conveyed by politicians trying to desperately discredit the government."

Pravind Jugnauth acknowledged that negative information about Alvaro Sobrinho was circulating. Among them: he was suspected by the Portuguese authorities of illegally transferring US $ 48 million from the National Bank of Angola, while he presided over the Banco Espirito Santo. But after requesting additional information, the Mauritian authorities were reassured: the businessman has never been convicted. 

For Xavier-Luc Duval, this is not enough. Condemned or not, Alvaro Sobrinho, who holds an occupational permit valid until October 6, 2018, is bringing discredit to the Mauritian financial sector. According to the leader of the opposition, the businessman is accused of being an international crook and as per the law, he should not have been granted an investment banking licence.

The PM said that in February, fresh information circulated in Portugal according to which the Banco Espirito Santo of Angola would have issued unsecured loans to companies belonging to Alvaro Sobrinho. In light of this information, the FSC asked the four companies of Alvaro Sobrinho not to start their operations. The FSC, the CCID and other authorities have also initiated investigations, including alleged identity fraud in license applications at the FSC in order for Mr Sobrinho's companies to receive the necessary clearance.

"In view of all this, I believe that the establishment of a commission of inquiry is unjustified," said Pravind Jugnauth. The leader of the opposition insisted during the PNQ that the establishment of such a commission is essential to shed light on the matter. He reiterated his assurance that everything will be done to "establish the facts and the truth in the Alvaro Sobrinho case".

To the allegations of Xavier-Luc Duval that there was interference to favour of the businessman, Pravind Jugnauth replied: "I have no information about interference."

The opposition leader recalled that Deputy Prime Minister Ivan Collendavelloo told the press a few weeks ago that he had discussions with Alvaro Sobrinho in February and that the man was innocent. 

"He declared Sobrinho innocent while investigations were underway. Is it not clear that he is putting pressure on the FSC and the FIU?" asked Xavier-Luc Duval. "I do not know what the Deputy Prime Minister said. He is entitled to have his own opinion," replied Pravind Jugnauth.

Motion of no confidence 

Shakeel Mohamed deplores the partiality of the Speaker

"She was selective, biased several times, she only heard the insults coming from the opposition ranks," said MP Shakeel Mohamed by presenting his motion of no confidence against the Speaker of the National Assembly, Mrs Maya Hanoomanjee. He has noted, since last year, several occasions when "the Speaker penalized members of the opposition. "

The opposition MP quoted excerpts from an interview given by the Speaker to a weekly newspaper. "The Speaker pointed out that it is up to the Leader of the House to decide on the 'business' of the House [referring to the motion of no confidence]. However, it is not the case. It is the Speaker who decides," said Shakeel Mohamed. For him, Maya Hanoomanjee "was neither fair nor equitable and was selective" when there were exchanges in the National Assembly between members of the majority and those of the opposition. "Repeatedly, she did not hear the insults coming from the majority ranks."

MP Mohamed cited examples of the Speaker's prohibition of journalist Touria Prayag, due to an opinion piece, his own expulsion during debates on the Sports Bill, the remarks of former Prime Minister Sir Anerood Jugnauth towards him. According to him, Maya Hanoomanjee was "selective" in her way of leading the debates.

The Labour Party MP also denounced the Speaker's proximity to members of the government. "She has to be neutral. But she was present at a political dinner at Clarisse House last year. Moreover, at the Tea Break in the National Assembly on Tuesdays, she sits at the same table as the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Vice Prime Ministers."

Sir Anerood Jugnauth: “She has always been reasonable”

Replying to Shakeel Mohamed’s motion of no confidence, Mentor Minister Sir Anerood Jugnauth (SAJ) took the defense of Mrs Maya Hanoomanjee. In his view, the Speaker of the national Assembly has always been fair and reasonable in her decisions. SAJ was very critical of the Labour Party parliamentary leader. According to the Mentor Minister, the MP did not even show respect in addressing the Speaker. He indicated that for members on the majority side of Parliament, the Speaker has always been fair and reasonable in her decisions.

“She has always respected the members of the National Assembly. It is regrettable that the members of the opposition did not stand up when the Speaker entered the House. It is a lack of respect for all women in the country.”

SAJ also pointed out that Maya Hanoomanjee is a relative and that is why she was invited to a party at the Clarisse House. “Members of the government will vote against this motion,” he said. The Mentor Minister pointed out that the opposition MP criticised the Speaker for not being neutral in her judgments.

SAJ asked: “Is it our fault, when we proposed the name of Maya Hanoomanjee to be the Speaker, that no one in the opposition stood up to second the motion?”

Referring to the ban on access to the National Assembly made to a journalist, SAJ pointed out that there is a precedent. “The Speaker cannot be blamed, because another journalist was banned from the National Assembly in the past.”

Opposition walks-out in solidarity with Bérenger

The debates on the motion of no confidence brought by MP Shakeel Mohamed against the Speaker of the National Assembly resulted in a walk-out of the opposition at 10.25 pm on Tuesday. This, as a sign of solidarity with the leader of the Movement Militant Mauricien (MMM) Paul Bérenger who was expelled by the Deputy Speaker, Mr Sanjeev Teeluckdharry.

While Minister of Education Leela Devi Dookun-Luchoomun took the floor to speak on the motion, Paul Bérenger was rebuked by the Deputy Speaker who reproached him for his gesticulations. From there, things turned sour and Sanjeev Teeluckdharry expelled the leader of the MMM. Members of the MMM followed suit. Then, other MPs of other opposition parties also left the House.

The session was suspended for ten minutes. According to Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth, who made a statement in the corridors of the National Assembly, the Deputy Speaker had no choice but to resort to the expulsion. “The behaviour of Paul Bérenger is very inappropriate. He should have listened to the points made by the members of the majority. That is democracy.”

As for opposition leader Xavier-Luc Duval, who made a statement to the press in his office, “it is a shame for Parliament. The expulsion of Paul Bérenger was too much.” Labour parliamentary leader Shakeel Mohamed said, “Of what use is it to stay there when there is a lack of justice and fairness? We cannot politicise everything.” 

For Adil Ameer Meeah, MMM member, “it’s a sad day for democracy.” During a press conference held on Wednesday, Paul Bérenger deplored the conduct of the Deputy Speaker during debates and thanked other opposition parties for their support.

The PMSD won’t put any questions through at next session

Members of the PMSD will not ask questions during the parliamentary session of Tuesday 11 April. This was stated by opposition MP and Whip, Mr Dan Baboo, on Radio Plus on Thursday morning April 6. He deplores the fact that questions put through by MPs of his party rank last on the list of questions. 

“We do not agree with the way questions are dealt with in Parliament. Each MP must have the same chance. We see that the questions from majority MPs are at the top of the list. When we tried to get clarification, we were told that their questions had been sent long before. We want to have more clarification on how the questions are sent,” said Mr Baboo.

Chief Whip Mr Maneesh Gobin replied that the opposition MP is unaware of procedures of National Assembly. For him, the stand taken by the PMSD does not make any sense as Whips do not have a say on the way questions are ranked on the order paper of the Assembly’s business.

Mr Gobin said the opposition party was trying to score political marks “by giving wrong information to the population.”