The Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) is definitely not well-thought of by the judiciary. It is the fourth court case that it has lost. The director of the commission’s Investigation Division, Roshi Bhadain has been given leave to challenge his suspension and dismissal through a judicial review. Thanks to this judgment, his two colleagues, Devanand Halkaree and Pravind Ghoorah, who were dismissed in the same way will be able to forward their own cases.

Roshi Bhadain started his fight several months ago. In February, judges Bernard Sik Yuen and Bushan Domah allowed him to amend his motion to include his dismissal. They declared that the reasons for his suspension and his dismissal did not match.

On the one hand, in a letter dated 3rd December 2003 to notify him of his suspension, the ICAC explained that Roshi Bhadain had discredited the institution. He was also accused of preventing the commission from working properly and told that his presence was detrimental to the institution.

On the other hand, to justify his dismissal, the ICAC said that Roshi Bhadain was still on probation and that he was not considered as the right person for the job. This decision had been taken in view of “all relevant matters, including (his) performance and aptitude to work within the organisation.”

The Court has allowed Roshi Badhain to lodge his judicial review because of ICAC’s inconsistent treatment of him and the incoherence of its decisions. The more so, as a letter of May 2003 describes his job conditions but contradicts the contract signed in February when he was appointed investigations director in terms of his length of service. These two letters are considered as “materially different” by the judges.

The judges have not pulled any punches against the commission. They consider that it has not applied the Prevention of Corruption Act regulations. It has not respected various clauses: the statement giving the reasons for the dismissal, the full opportunity to explain why his dismissal is unfair, the reference of the case to the Corruption Advisory Committee within seven days and finally the seven day deadline to dismiss him after his referral to this committee.

“First step”

The Court considers that the ICAC should have respected all these steps even if Roshi Bhadain was still on probation. The judges have expressed their disapproval of ICAC’s decisions because the latter is expected to maintain certain standards. The commission against corruption is expected to give the example. And it is not with internal crises and bad treatment of its own employees that the commission will achieve its goals. Judges Sik Yuen and Domah explain in their judgment: “This fight (against corruption) should start with the very respect of its own employees’ rights as they are defined and guaranteed by the legal measures of the commission.”

In any case, this court case opposing Roshi Bhadain to ICAC is not finished yet… As his lawyer, Yousuf Mohamed, declared after the judgment: “This judgment is only the first step in the struggle. We will have to fight even more to win the whole battle.”