The commission of enquiry on allegations of bribery in the purchase of gantry cranes has ended its work and submitted its conclusions. However, the opposition leader does not seem satisfied with them?

First of all, I must say that he is a politician, which I am not. Navin Ramgoolam must have got carried away at the National Assembly when he said: ?Bribes have been taken, I know.? When faced with the reality ? that there was no evidence that bribes had been taken ? it is difficult to climb down. We don?t expect any politician to do that.

What are the exact conclusions of the commission?

Firstly, there was no evidence that bribes were given or whatever. When Jack Bizlall deponed, he said I should go to Abu Dhabi to enquire on the matter. If I had asked for a plane ticket to Abu Dhabi at the expense of the Mauritian government, don?t you think they would have laughed at me? After having seen all the witnesses and tried to get evidence, I came to the conclusion that there was no real reason to blame the Cargo Handling Corporation Limited (CHCL) or the Mauritius Ports Authority (MPA). It would be absolute nonsense to have reacted otherwise since the International Management and Construction Corporation (IMCC) came into the picture quite incidentally when negotiations with Maersk collapsed. I did not want to shift the blame onto the Central Tender Board, like some people said, either. I only said that if the CHC had sent me letter containing the words ?acquisition?, and ?invest in cranes?, I would have asked for more explanations before declining the jurisdiction in the transaction.

Do you consider that you really extended the attributions of your commission?

Of course I did. My only attribution when I was asked to chair the commission was to see if there were bribes taken or given. I could have stopped the inquiry very quickly if I had stuck to this but I went from the very beginning to the very end.

What do you think of Rama Valayden?s reaction on the conclusions of the commission?

I saw two different versions in the newspapers. He sometimes says that he maintains what he said. But then, I see that his information does not allow him to say anything else on the issue. I think the second version is the truth. I believe people have been saying words without knowing the facts.

And Raja Bhadain?s, member of the Action Anti-Corruption Group?

His main concern was that my conclusions did not fit in with the prime minister?s words before the commission was set up. Paul Bérenger had said that the CHCL and the MPA had failed somewhere but he did not have all the information at the time. The commission was intended to shed light on this affair in view of all the information collected. There is no evidence supporting Navin Ramgoolam?s words.