Setting the stage for a broader debate

As the MPs debate on the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill at the National Assembly, it is worth underlining that the media has played a pivotal role in setting the stage for a broader debate on a bill that has prompted lots of controversies.  Indeed the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill has stirred up passions. The fact that there was a lapse of time in between the first reading of the bill (on 27 October last) and debates on the same (on 3 December 2015) at the National Assembly, has enabled contradictory debates from all quarters. The Minister of Financial Services, Good Governance and Institutional Reforms Mr. Roshi Bhadain has on numerous occasions insisted that he had purposely allowed ample time to all so as to enable public debate. If this were indeed his intention, it is very much laudable. However, it is obvious that such a legislation which has brought about an amendment to the Constitution (the Constitution (Amendment) Bill) introduced in the National Assembly by the Prime Minister Sir Anerood Jugnauth), would require a broader consensus and would never have been voted without the endorsement of all political sensitivities. In the meantime, the Asset Recovery (Amendment) Bill introduced by the Minister of Financial Services, Good Governance and Institutional Reforms Mr. Roshi Bhadain has been voted. It must be noted that these three bills, namely the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill and the Asset Recovery (Amendment) Bill go hand in hand. To date, the heated debates in the media and at the seat of the Mauritius Bar Association and …at the meeting of the cabinet of Ministers on Friday last have impelled Mr. Roshi Bhadain to come forward with no less than six amendments to the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill. These amendments are as follows: First, a threshold of Rs 10 million will be established regarding the value of property on which a privilege can be inscribed in favor of the Government of Mauritius, should the proprietor “be unable to give a satisfactory account of his unexplained wealth”. Earlier, the bill did not provide for a clear definition of “wealth”. The second amendment has to do with a delay of six weeks that will be imposed on the Integrity Reporting Services Agency to complete its enquiry and refer the matter to the Supreme Court to proceed with the inscription of the property. Thirdly, in the original version of the Bill, it was proposed that the chairperson of the Integrity Reporting Board (who shall be a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of Mauritius or of any other Commonwealth State) shall be appointed by the Prime Minister; and that “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”. In the proposed amendment, the chairperson will be appointed by the President of the Republic, upon recommendation of the Prime Minister and after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Originally, the Director of the Integrity Reporting Services Agency, was to be appointed, subject to the approval of the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Financial Services, Good Governance and Institutional Reforms. The appointment of the Director of the Integrity Reporting Services Agency will most probably be made the same way it will be done for the Chairperson of the Integrity Reporting Board. The fourth amendment has to do with the retroactivity of the legislation. At first, it was fixed to seven years but acting on the advice of the State Law Office, it has been decided to propose an amendment so that enquiries will not be carried out on properties bought seven years earlier. The fifth amendment has to do with the delay of twenty-one days. Originally, a person suspected of having amassed unexplained wealth would have been given this delay, failing which, he/she would have been liable to either a fine not exceeding Rs 50,000 or subject to serve an imprisonment of not more than one year. However, the person would still have to swear an affidavit in the Supreme Court, at the request of the Integrity Reporting Services Agency. The sixth amendment became necessary because of a legal puzzle. What would happen if a person constructs a house on a plot of land which he/she has inherited in a very legal manner or he/she has acquired legally. In the end, the courts would undertake to reimburse the value of the plot of land to the person. It is interesting to see how the two main opposition parties, namely the Mouvement Militant Mauricien (MMM) and the Mauritius Labour Party have reacted to the proposed bill. If at first, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Paul Bérenger had termed this bill as “being scary and very dangerous”, he had nevertheless given the impression right from the beginning that he was open to discussions. In fact as early as on Thursday 26th October last, Mr. Paul Bérenger had stated in no uncertain terms that his party (the MMM) was open to discussions on the issue. We had observed on 5 November 2015 that “Mr. Bérenger does not seem to be disturbed by the verbal gaffes of Mr. Roshi Badhain and claims that these do not affect at all his “natural optimism” in view of a general consensus on the issue of “means to be set up to crack down illicit wealth”. As things evolved, the MMM decided to vote the amendment to the Constitution, which they did. In the process, the majority applauded the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, which is something quite rare in our Parliament. Also, according to Le Defi Quotidien, issue of Wednesday 2 December ,2015, a reporting line had been established between Mr. Roshi Bhadain and Mr Bérenger so as to ease discussions on proposed amendments to the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill. The grapevine has it that they have even telephoned to each other on regular occasions in a bid to find a consensus. A new amendment was even proposed by Minister Bhadain apparently late on Wednesday evening. As at midday, on Thursday, the MMM was still sitting on the fence regarding the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill. Although the MMM MP had voted the Constitution (Amendment) Bill on Wednesday, they were maintaining that they had strong reserves against the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill and that it was more likely that they would vote against the bill. The main argument of the MMM is that in the event that the bill is voted by a three quarter majority, it would prevent those who feel aggrieved by the new legislation to enter a case in the Supreme Court. An argument which the Prime Minister Sir Anerood Jugnauth has shrugged off on Wednesday when he was summing up the debates on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. It must be noted that the four MPs of the Mauritius Labour Party have voted against the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. The leader of the Opposition and of the MMM has on numerous occasions urged that debates on the “La Loi Bhadain” (Bhadain’s Law) be reported to next year. The Mauritius Labour Party has been logic with itself by voting against the Constitution (Amendment) Bill and in most probably adopting the same position regarding the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill. Ever since these legislations were announced, the Labour Party has denounced the ill-intention of the government, arguing that these laws would target members of the party. On Tuesday, the leader of the Labour Party, Dr. Navin Ramgoolam, who met the press, soon after the meeting of the politburo of the party, once more said that government was motivated by a “political vendetta” to come forward which such legislations. Interestingly enough, the Mauritius Labour Party has had the merit to publish and present a comprehensive Position Paper on the issue. As Minister Bhadain has been struggling to convince each and everyone about the good intention of the government, he has had to face severe opposition within the ranks of the majority itself. MSM MP Mr. Sudesh Rughoobar was the first to oppose some aspects of the Bill. Then Mr Sudesh Sesungkur (MSM MP), Mr. Bashir Jahangeer (MSM MP) and Mrs. Danielle Selvon (ex-MSM MP) followed suit. The PMSD also expressed its reserves but in a more discreet manner. One thing is for sure. Armed with this new piece of legislation, the Lepep government can now continue its “operation nettoyage” without let or hindrance.