We came across some correspondence exchanged between Bert Cunningham, then director of Customs, and Sudhamo Lal, Director General of the Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA), regarding the now famous case of evasion of duty and taxes by MBL Distribution that imported 7 000 crates of whisky from Scotland in 2006.

The matter was referred to the police and, in September 2000 and in January 2006, the police informed the customs department that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had advised that ?no further action? would be taken in this affair.

Cunningham was reportedly angered by the DPP?s decision and has since made no attempt to hide his displeasure, which he expressed regularly through the press. But what?s interesting - if not disturbing - about the memos exchanged between Cunningham and his former boss, is the fact that despite several threats - or promises - of going to the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) regarding the allegations of corruption - Cunningham believed that the DPP came to his decision in this case because the importer was related to officials of the State Law Office -, he never did so, even after express permission was granted to him by Sudhamo Lal to go ahead and inform the ICAC of the evidence he purportedly had.

On the 24th of September 2006 (some nine months after Customs was informed that the DPP wouldn?t prosecute MBL), Bert Cunningham wrote a letter to his DG in which he said: ?I must also inform you that I have received intelligence information to the effect that this importer is related to some people in the State Law Office (SLO) and the Judiciary.? He also adds that he is ?not in a position to confirm this serious allegation? but adds, ?In my opinion, this entire matter should be referred to the Minister of Justice and the ICAC?. And, true to his word, Bert Cunningham does write to the Attorney General on the 9th of October 2006, saying, ?I have also received a number of anonymous allegations that the failure to prosecute this case was due to the fact that the importer is related to persons in the SLO.?

But Cunningham fails to report the matter to the ICAC. Then, on the 12th of January 2007, he writes to the DG of MRA and says that although ?as a public officer?, it was his legal duty to report to the authorities concerned ?that I had received credible information that an act of corruption had been committed?, he received ?no instruction? from the DG to go ahead.

Sudhamo Lal reacted to the letter in February 2007 and tells Cunningham that according to the MRA legal advisor, the evidence seemed flimsy.

But then a year later, on the 5th of May 2008, after a meeting between the two men, Lal again writes to Cunningham telling him that since during the discussion they had, ?you stated that one of your officers was prepared to divulge the name of the person in the SLO involved in the corruption case (?) You are requested to either send the statement relating to an incidence of corruption in the SLO signed by your officer for onward transmission to ICAC or send the particulars/evidence directly to ICAC.?

Despite this, Cunningham sends two more letters to Lal, requesting for permission to refer the matter to ICAC for investigations.

Sudhamo Lal writes back, saying that approval had already been granted, ?as soon as your letter was received.?

Surprisingly, there was no more communication from Bert Cunningham regarding this affair after the approval he so desperately sought. So the DG sent him another letter on the 11th of June, asking him to ?confirm that the statements have been filed before ICAC.? To which Cunningham replies on the same day, ?statement will be filed to ICAC early next week.?

Then bizarrely, on the 25th of June, Bert Cunningham, who had not sent the evidence he had to the ICAC, writes an email to Sudhamo Lal, saying, ?Customs has reported corruption to you and ICAC involving the DPP and officials in the SLO regarding the large case of under valuation of whisky by MBL. As you are aware, the owner of this company is connected politically??

To which the DG replied by email, two days later, ?regarding your last email, may I inform you that you had informed me that you would give the statement and evidence to ICAC directly, which has not yet been given. It is incorrect to state that this has been given to me.?

On the same day, Bert Cunningham replies to the email, saying that before going to the ICAC, one of his officers, ?Mr Persand may need access to certain documents related to this case which are apparently available only at your office, prior to submitting package to ICAC.?

Following this, Sudhamo Lal reportedly telephoned the officer in question, informing him ?he may get any file from the DG?s office, if needed.? To which the officer replied that he would ?speak to Mr Cunningham and would then get back to the DG.?

And that was the end of the matter; nothing else was heard of the matter until the day of Bert Cunningham?s departure on the 8th of August 2008.

<B>Pay rise or else?</B>

■ As all this was going on, Bert Cunningham sent another letter on the 24th of July 2008 to the DG, asking for a pay rise. ?I am now completing my second year of a 3 year contract; in the meantime, the US dollar has plunged seriously in value relative to many currencies (?)

For your information, most international Customs Consultants working in the African region earn a minimum of 1000 Euro per day + expenses and these individuals do not have the significant operational + reform responsibilities I have been undertaking.? Cunningham further in his letter, says, ?Based on the response received, I can decide whether or not to commence my third year of contract?? Cunningham resigned under duress less than two months later.