14 April 2003

Dear Navin and Gérard,

Ten months have elapsed since we have been working together as Members of the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) set up under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) 2002. I have come to know and appreciate that we share a common set of values that has enabled us to work as a team. We share the view that the very concept of the ICAC, the purpose and the context in which it was set up require that it operates within an environment where excellence, transparency, corporate governance, compliance and accountability would be exemplary. We have pledged that the hope and trust that the entire Mauritian nation has placed in the ICAC must be upheld, at whatever cost come what may.

It is with these ideals in mind that I would like to place on record certain facts concerning the operations of the ICAC. There are many issues that we have discussed and agreed upon. There are other issues that we have been unable to resolve and where we have fundamental disagreement. There is nothing basically wrong with such a situation as long as such issues are properly recorded and documented. I think that such situation is proof that as professionals we operate with an independence of mind, unshakable determination and sincerity of purpose.

We also share a common view on the accountability of ICAC: it must be an institution that can, at any time, stand the scrutiny of any outside party, legally constituted, on any aspect of its activities. The ICAC must not only show that it has complied with the law but must be in a position to provide evidence of such compliance.

In the setting up of any new organisation, there are some inevitable teething problems. The ICAC is no exception. In the case of the ICAC, the fact that the whole Act was proclaimed on one date has been an added difficulty. The standard of compliance in the initial set up process of the institution may not be of the standard expected.

Now that the ICAC is 10 months? old we cannot expect anything less than the highest standard of compliance i.e. 100% compliance and 0% tolerance. This is challenge that we should impose on ourselves, irrespective of any possible outside scrutiny. All attention is focused on the ICAC.

The legislature, in its wisdom, decided to create a Commission consisting of three Members to perform the 18 functions described in Section 20. The list includes to ?receive and consider any allegation that a corruption offence has been committed?. Part IV of the PCA 2002 described the proceedings of the Commission.

From a reading of Part IV one reaches the inescapable conclusion that the Commission is the only decision-making body of the institution. All notifications under Sections 43, 44, 45 must be made to the Commission. It would be unthinkable that any one Member could filter complaints and decide whether or not a complaint should go before the Commission. This would not only be in violation of the law but would destroy the credibility of the Commission.

This means that a list of all complaints received, with all details, must be tabled before the Commission. The Commission must have the final say as to which complaints are pursuable or not. The list of non-pursuable complaints must be approved by the Commission and properly recorded and documented.

The Commission once it has become aware of a corruption must refer the matter to the Director Investigation Division for investigation and the Director must revert back to the Commission (Section 46).

My views are as follows:

I believe that in all legislation there is logic. I just cannot understand that, although I am a Member of the Commission, I learn of arrest and other operations of the Commission in the press ! This has been going for the past 10 months. I have raised this issue with Navin in September 2002 and again, early this year with both of you. There have been several criticisms on the ICAC in the press, at the District Court, the Supreme Court and even the Prime Minister. As a Member of the Commission I share the responsibility and liability on decisions that I am not a party to and which I myself learn in the press.

I have learnt through the press last week that the ICAC has started investigations at the Mauritius Duty-Free Paradise (MDFP). On Saturday 12 April, I again learnt through the press that the ICAC has received a complaint on the Indian Ocean International Bank (IOIB) and investigations would start. I am the only Member of the Commission who is a professional expert in financial matters and yet I have been bypassed in the handling of both the MDFP and the IOIB. Besides being contrary to law, I find this humiliating and inelegant. Do you think this can stand the test of an independent scrutiny ?

I have repeatedly stated that policy and important functions and decisions of the ICAC must be formally discussed, approved and recorded at the Commission level. The Commission?s valuable time cannot be devoted almost entirely to administration and financial matters. It would be useful to compare how many papers on car expenses and how many on allegations and investigations have been discussed at the Commission. The operations required to comply with Sections 43 to 46 and implement functions listed in Section 20 must be prominent items on the agenda of every meeting of the Commission. These constitute the core business of the Commission. Every decision must be properly recorded and documented. After 10 months it is time to look back and check how many of these functions have actually been on the agenda of the Commission.

After the comments of the Prime Minister, I again raised the issue of arrest. Section 53 makes a distinction between the circumstances in which a person may be arrested and the actual power of arrest: It is only the Commission that can direct an officer in writing to arrest a person. By extension when officers recruited under Section 24, make an arrest it can only be done under the written authority of the Commission.

We need to better manage and monitor our core activities at the level of the Commission. I am able and willing to set up such a monitoring system.

Please do not take my comments in a negative manner. They are not intended to be so. We are going through a tough time. It is a time that we must strengthen our team spirit even further. I have not only the interest of the Commission and our collective interest at heart but also my personal integrity to uphold. The challenges we are facing are formidable. I would appreciate if the points I have raised could be taken up at a meeting of the Commission, even after office hours, and that whatever the decision taken on each issue be properly recorded and documented.

M. TAUJOO

Deputy Commissioner

OPERATIONS OF THE ICAC

8 August 2003

Dear Navin,

On 14 April 2003, I wrote a letter to you and Gérard in which I expressed certain serious qualms about some issues concerning the operations of the ICAC. After discussions with Gérard and yourself, I decided to withdraw my letter on the understanding that all the issues I raised would be addressed.

It was decided that: A. The Agenda of the Commission meetings would be divided into parts and The Corruption Investigation Division (CID), The Corruption Prevention and Education Division (CPED) would in addition to the Finance and Administration Division be subject to monitoring by the Commission so that the Commission could fulfil its functions as laid down in section 30 of the PCA 2002.

B. The Commission would be presented with a list of all complaints received by the CID so that it can fulfil its statutory duties as required by section 46 of the PCA 2002.

C. The Directors of CID and CPED would report to the Commission at each meeting on the activities of their respective Divisions in accordance with the PCA 2002.

In fact a new procedure was adopted for one meeting but the Commission was presented with just a list of only some complaints. It was agreed that this was not appropriate and that there should be a small brief complaint so that the Commission could properly exercise its functions. It was also decided that the list would be distributed to Members one day before. This was not done. The whole procedure was subsequently discontinued on the ground that the Report System had to be set in place.

The Commission has not been presented with any complaint received.

The issues raised in my letter under reference are as relevant now as they were then. Even the complaints concerning the Mauritius Duty-Free Paradise (MDFP) and the Indian Ocean International Bank (IOIB) to which I referred in my letter have never been referred to the Commission. I am therefore reinstating my letter dated 14 April 2003.

Please do not take this initiative in a negative manner. I feel I have exhausted all avenues to remedy the situation internally. I cannot continue to assume responsibility for the decisions of the Commission of which I am not a party to and on which I have no control. Already, I am being attacked in social circles on decisions of the Commission about which I do not have the slightest clue.

I am therefore copying this letter to the President of the Republic of Mauritius and Chairman of the Appointment Committee for this information and for any guidance he may offer.

I wish to inform you that I am taking some further issues with the President and Chairman of the Appointment Committee in a separate letter.

I wish once again to reiterate that I have the interest of the Commission and our collective interest at heart.

M. Taujoo

Deputy Commissioner