So, the minister of Housing and Lands, Asraf Dulull, has not been charged with any offence in the alleged corruption case in a State land lease for an IRS project. The Central Criminal Investigation Department (CCID) found the minister?s version coherent and believed he had made his statement in good faith. The government, which had always said it would support minister Dulull as long as there was no prima facie case against him, has reiterated its trust in a ?man who has tried to do his job with dignity?. However, the mystery about the request of a Rs 50 million commission has not been unravelled yet. There are contradictions that still have to be cleared up.

After the public relations officer (PRO) of Bel-Air Sugar Estate (BASE) publicly stated that he had been asked for a Rs 50 million bribe to make the file of BASE Integrated Resorts Scheme (IRS) progress, all parties have been making statements to the police. In his three statements ? made at different points in time ? the PRO of BASE was adamant that Rafiq Peermamode, the general manager of Subaru Motors, had introduced himself as minister Dulull?s middleman when he made his request. BASE general manager, Patrick Rountree, has supported this version and declared that Peermamode had attended a meeting in the minister?s office.

This is the main bone of contention. If minister Dulull admits he knows Peermamode and even acknowledges that he was present at that meeting, he nevertheless asserts that the Subaru director did not come with him ? but with Patrick Rountree. As he knew Peermamode, he accepted his presence at the meeting.

However, Patrick Rountree denies this fact and says that Peermamode was already in the waiting room ? next to the minister?s office ? when he arrived. BASE management has warned it would go to the police to add such precisions to his statement this week to contradict the minister?s version. ?Everything we will say will prove that the minister?s explanations are not correct,? declared the sugar estate manager. As for Peermamode, he told the police he went to the meeting ?with Patrick Rountree?.

Internal sources in BASE, however, say that ?it is well-known that Peermamode was the one who contacted the PRO Anil Nemchand to offer his ?good services? to help the estate. This is how he could arrange a meeting for Patrick Rountree?. The PRO of BASE is sceptic as well. ?How could Peermamode discuss projects of the BASE??

Questioned by the police, minister Dulull said he was not even aware that Peermamode was discussing with BASE regarding their hotel and IRS projects. The minister also gave details of his presence at a dinner at Peermamode?s brother?s place last December and said he was only a guest and that the issue of the IRS project had not been mentioned.

<I>Internal sources in Bel-Air say that ?it is well-known that Peermamode was the one who contacted Anil Nemchand to offer his ?good services? to help the estate.</I>

According to one of the minister?s lawyers, Jacques Panglose, the questioning of Asraf Dulull was only based on allegations; there is no evidence against the minister and this is why there is no charge against him. ?There have never even been any direct allegations against the minister. There was only a double hearsay. Someone said that someone else asked something for another one. Evidence is very weak. For us, the case is closed.? The minister has called upon the services of not less than four lawyers ? Jacques Panglose, Raouf Gulbul, Panzany Rengasamy and Shawkat Oozeer.

Now that the minister is out of trouble, Peermamode wants to be cleared as well. Provisionally accused of bribery, his lawyers believe that the case against him should be dismissed. They have written to the police to state their intention of ask that all charges be withdrawn. Peermamode has always denied accusations of bribery against him; he acknowledged that he spoke with BASE executives on their IRS projects but that it was only for ?socio-benefits? from BASE, which are actually included in any formal application for an IRS project.

Ashley Hurhangee stated: ?If the police found there was no evidence against minister Dulull, then it means that Rafiq Peermamode is not the middleman between Dulull and Bel-Air. So, my client?s statement was made in good faith. If the police believes Asraf Dulull, who has the same stand as Peermamode on the bribery issue, then they have to believe what my client said in his full statement.?