Although the country is expecting explanations from the commissioner of the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC), Navin Beekarry, the latter has so far remained silent. Even the government seems impatient to see a move from him. It has asked the State Law Office for advice on whether the police can question him. Since the answer is a positive one, the government is now waiting for Navin Beekarry?s comments without delay.

The government has had Navin Beekarry in its sights for some time now. The prime minister, Paul Bérenger, even advocated the dismissal of the ICAC commissioner during its internal crisis, even if he has now cooled down. It is no secret that the president, Sir Anerood Jugnauth, opposed this dismissal and that the final decision rests with him.

Jack Bizlall, the famous trade unionist, has targeted the ICAC commissioner and alleged that the latter has been involved in fraudulent dealings. These range from the conspiracy to oust former ICAC investigation director, Roshi Bhadain, Halkaree?s confinement to force a false statement out of him, the decoration of ICAC?s offices and the sale of his personal car through Iframac. These are considered as ?criminal practices? even if it may seem that the trade unionist has mixed up issues.

The alleged fraud at the origin of all the other allegations was the one that involved Navin Beekarry himself in the ?fraudulent? purchase of a new car at Iframac for Rs 1.6 million in exchange for his old car which was worth only 1.1 million. The trade-unionist points out that the Prevention of Corruption Act states that a public official cannot ask for or even accept a gratification if it is offered to him.

The fact remains that there are serious misgivings about the ICAC commissioner especially since he has not deemed it necessary to comment on the allegations. Worse still, though Jack Bizlall?s allegations incriminate him personally, Navin Beekarry has used the commission to respond to the attack.

He has issued a press release in the name of the ICAC to comment that accusations have been made to denigrate the institution. So far, the trade unionist has not questioned the institution, but the commissioner as an individual. Could Navin Beekarry be so full of himself that he confuses the institution with himself, implying that he is the institution?

Despite the fact that he is not the institution, he is the head of it and, as such, should be a model of honesty and transparency. His silence may be interpreted as a way of avoiding explanations. His image has to reflect the struggle he is supposed to lead against corruption and he should not forget that he is paid from public funds.

Bizlall?s accusations, though confused, are serious enough to deserve explanations from the main person concerned. They have come from the one who revealed the Air Mauritius scandal, and this gives them much credibility in the eyes of the public. A public that is quite sceptical about the honesty of persons who are supposed to be above suspicion, especially after the notary connection that involves so many important people.