|
|
Mauritius: Icac replies to students' "taboo" questions
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
L'Express (Port Louis)
7 December 2007
Posted to the web 7 December 2007
Pauline Etienne
Port Louis
The Icac seized the opportunity of Anti- corruption Day scheduled for next Sunday to take young people on board in the fight against fraud and bribery. It started with an encounter in its headquarters yesterday.
Anil Kumar Ujoodha (Centre) and his two board members, Indira Manrakhan and Hamid Imrith, said it was hard to prove an act of corruption.
Youth is our future. With this in mind, the Independent Commission against Corruption (Icac) organised a face-to-face debate between its director general, Anil Kumar Ujoodha, two board members, Indira Manrakhan and Hamid Imrith, and students of various schools - among whom many are part of Integrity Clubs.
The idea was to open the floor to them for all types of questions - even those that could be called "taboos", according to the director general - so that they may better understand corruption and the job done by the Icac to combat it. The ultimate objective appeared to be that these young people feel more concerned about the issue and join in the fight.
The main information that came out of this workshop was the fact that "it takes time and it can be very difficult to prove a case of corruption", said Anil Kumar Ujhooda on several occasions. Many students present could not understand why it took so much time for the Icac to complete an investigation. "Just remember the case of ELF in France; it took more than six years to be completed," he commented
He made it clear that any person denounced by an informer would be the subject of an investigation by the Icac. To a question of a student, he made it clear that the Icac was totally independent and could initiate an enquiry even on the prime minister if it had any reasons to do so. "The hardest thing is to get people to come to our office and say that they have been witnessing a case of corruption."
Although there is a "rise in the number of people daring to speak, which is positive" - as Indira Manrakhan suggested, it is still not enough to be informed of all cases of corruption. One of the pupils suggested that whistleblowers be protected so that they would be encouraged to come forward and denounce malpractices.
"In the case of an informer, we can only make sure his identity will remain confidential. But if this informer is to become a witness, we can't obviously guarantee such confidentiality because he will have to give his statement in Court. As far as proper protection is concerned, I believe that each person should take his/her own responsibilities in such cases," he replied.
The DG of the ICAC did not want to comment on the import of Chinese flour because he does not "benefit from parliamentary immunity".
In addition to informers coming at the Icac to make a statement, Anil Kumar Ujoodha made it clear that "the investigation team was also doing its job to detect possible cases of corruption". In cases of allocation of contracts to the private sector by the government, for instance, the Icac can monitor the whole process.
"However, the staff is not important enough to monitor every single case and we need to make a choice among those where suspicions are the most present." As a result, "we sometimes rely on hearsay to make sure procedures are followed in some cases. The case of the Caudan roundabout, mentioned by the press, was one of them," explained Hamid Imrith.
But, in such cases, the problem of proving there has been an act of corruption remains extremely difficult. In fact, all contracts must go through the procedures established by the Central Tender Board. "Let's say that a high official of a public department invites tenders but gives inside information to one person to win the bid. The winner would then give a gratification to this high official but it would probably be in cash or paid on someone else's account. How can we prove there has been corruption then?" wondered Anil Kumar Ujoodha.
The DG did not want to comment specifically on the case of the import of Chinese flour and the recruitment of the three people at the head of the newly set-up State Trading Company Ltd because he "does not benefit from parliamentary immunity". But he said that the Icac would "do what it has to do".
He, however, made it clear that the IcaC was there to put the "safeguards" and make procedures more transparent to obtain more results. He made it clear that there was a need to be patient because a lot depended on sections of the law that take time to be amended.
|
The three members also insisted on the necessary mind-shift to change the situation of corruption in the country. "Many of you must have given some presents to your teachers at the end of the year. Just ask yourself whether this could be considered as a bribe," said Indira Manrakhan. This remark led to an outcry in the public who didn't believe this should be considered as such. "This is debatable. But we have some cases here where presents amounted to Rs 10,000. So, where should we stop?" wondered the Icac director.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2007 L'Express. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections -- or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Make allAfrica.com your home page | RSS Feed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Top | Site Guide | Who We Are | Advertising | Search | Subscribe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Questions or Comments? Contact us. Read our Privacy Statement. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
