The Independent Commission against Corruption (Icac) is once more in the limelight. But this time, it is not really responsible for this. After announcing a series of amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act (Poca) to be presented in Parliament today, the government seems to have changed its mind. As one of the amendments has been subject to much criticism – the government wanted to give immunity to Icac officers when they do their job “in good faith” – it has finally decided to review its stand after cabinet meeting last Friday.

Since the government stated its wish to include such amendments in the Poca, the opposition has not stopped criticising it. “We won’t accept such a law… We can’t let this happen,” claimed Mauritian Militant Movement (MMM) leader, Paul Bérenger, in one of Mayday preparation meetings. He added: “Any opposition party should stand up and organise to fight it.” Militant Socialist Movement (MSM) leader, Pravind Jugnauth, also found the proposal simply “unacceptable” and thinks this “immunity could reveal itself very dangerous”.

The amendment stipulates: “No action shall lie against the commission, the board, any member of the board or any officer of the commission, as the case may be, in respect of any act done or omission made by it or him in good faith, in the performance of its or his functions under this Act or any other enactment.” According to the opposition, as well as to political observers, such an amendment would have given full power to the Icac officers who could allow themselves to tarnish people’s reputations without concrete evidence since they would not feel threatened.

People being unfairly arrested by the commission would have no more resort. Philippe A. Forget, who was arrested in the course of the enquiry on the MCB/NPF financial scandal, wrote last week: “Today, I have – except for renewed trust from people who know me well as they never apologised for what they did – only one resort against those who tarnished my image. It is to call upon justice to ask for damages. Hence, it would not be fair that such resort be withdrawn to someone in my situation in the future because the ones responsible for this benefit from immunity.”

The president of the Bar Council, Robin Ramburn, believes immunity can be given to officers of some institutions as long as they are not investigative bodies. “In any case, why should there be immunity? If the officer does his job in good faith, I can’t see why he should have problems. Even the commissioner of police does not benefit from immunity!”

In view of such public reluctance to these changes, the prime minister, Navin Ramgoolam, asked the Attorney General, Rama Valayden, to “review the amendment over immunity because he doesn’t want any abuse from the officers”. If the attorney general agreed that this “risk can’t be dismissed”, he made it clear that the aim of such an amendment was only to help the commission better fight corruption.

Positive sign</B>