Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the hon. Member for this PQ which will allow me to expand on the new philosophy of this Government regarding amenities of government schools. In fact, I am informed that some of the amenities of government schools were already accessible to the public prior to my coming into office. However, given that there are numerous requests from registered organisations to benefit from government school amenities, my Ministry has decided to provide more access to the following amenities – 1. gymnasium for badminton;

88 2. football grounds, volleyballs and basketball pitches, and 3. classrooms to conduct workshops on human values, anti-bullying campaigns and training by registered agencies to empower our senior citizens and women’s organisations. It has been reported that there are no appropriate amenities in many localities for the public to practice activities such as karate, yoga and Zumba among others. With a view to providing such leisure activities in different localities as a primordial antidote for drug and substance abuse, the public will be given access to the above activities in more government schools in light of emerging needs and requirements. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as per the existing procedures, registered groups or organisations have to submit their applications to the Heads of School or to the Zone Directorates. Same are approved by the Zone Directors upon the recommendation of the Head of School for a period valid up to four months, subject to availability of slots. There is a payment of a nominal fee of Rs100 per hour for badminton courts and Rs200 per hour for whole gymnasium and football ground. The nominal fees are used to cover the cost of maintenance and security service for the amenities. With a view to maximising safe and secure access to Government for school amenities for extracurricular activities after school hours, the current procedures will be streamlined and the fees to be charged will be reconsidered. The amenities of schools will be granted to registered organisations in the locality and its surrounding areas. A survey across all schools having such amenities will be conducted and same will be put at the disposal of the public. However, this will entail a responsible use of these amenities. Those who will be using the school premises will have to adhere to strict discipline, rules and regulations which will be set by the Heads of School and Zonal Directors. In no way, should our staff or students be penalised or disturbed by this measure. I wish also to reassure Educators and Head of Schools that opening the premises of Government schools after school hours for extracurricular activities will not entail any additional hours of work for them. Thank you.

Thank you. Time is over! The Table has been advised that PQ B/441 has been withdrawn.

89 MOTION SUSPENSION OF S.O. 10(2)

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that all the business on today’s Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order 10. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to. PUBLIC BILLS First Reading On motion made and seconded, the following Bills were read a first time – (a) The Constitution (Amendment) Bill (No. X of 2025) (b) The Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill (No. XI of 2025)

Thank you. Hon. Members, Madam Speaker will take the Chair. At this stage, Madam Speaker took the Chair.

You may be seated! Second Reading THE PUBLIC INQUIRIES BILL (NO. V OF 2025) Order for Second Reading read.

Yes, hon. Minister! (4.21 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, I move that the Public Inquiries Bill (No. V of 2025) be read a second time and I stand as Ag. Attorney General in this matter.

Yes.

Madam Speaker, the Public Inquiries Bill is not a routine update or a cosmetic change of name – the same old product in a new packaging. This is a reform of our whole approach to administrative inquiries, a reform whose time has come and whose

90 necessity is both practical and historical; for this Bill is about how the State confronts the truth, how it learns from experience and how it responds when something has gone wrong or is feared to have gone wrong. As hon. Members are aware, the Government Programme 2025-2029 has pledged to replace the Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1944 with a legislation that is modern, transparent and fit for purpose. Indeed, Madam Speaker, the Act it replaces is over 80 years old. It was shaped in a colonial era, when the Governor General – not Parliament – determined how and why inquiries would be held. It contains no procedural safeguards, no timelines, no recognition of rights and no clarity as to the legal status of findings. Over time, it has become a blunt tool, sometimes used well, sometimes not. In a modern democracy, we need more coherent standards, less confusion. We need a sharper instrument, one capable of balancing truth finding with fairness and legitimacy. This is why we are now replacing a bludgeon with a scalpel. The flaws of the old law are well documented. Commissions of Inquiry have too often lacked credibility, not necessarily because the idea of truth finding was wrong but because the process failed. Our Courts have thus intervened repeatedly. In the case of Ramgoolam v Matadeen 2001, the Supreme Court criticised the Commission for making serious allegations against the sitting Prime Minister without giving him a chance to respond. In Valayden v Matadeen 2002, it found that individuals were denied the right to rebut damaging evidence heard in their absence. There have been many such examples over the years. In fact, it is now expected that after the publication of every report by a Commission of Inquiry, there will be applications for judicial review, where people affected by damaging comments would go to the Court to seek justice. They would say ‘my rights were violated; my reputation has been damaged. I was not given the chance to rebut allegations against me. I was not treated fairly.’ And regularly, the Supreme Court has vindicated them. In 2022, even the Privy Council found in the case of Pyaneandee v Lam Shang Leen that – “The procedure adopted by the Commission in relation to the appellant did not accord with the principles of fairness and natural justice.” The Courts have been clear. Natural justice is not optional. Fairness is not negotiable. Where rights and reputations are at stake, due process is a must. An inquiry’s legitimacy depends not just on what it says it has uncovered but how it went about to uncover it. This is not merely a philosophical point. It has practical implications.

91 The Institute for Government in the UK has shown that public trust in the inquiry process is tightly linked to transparency, timeliness and clarity of purpose. In their study of UK public inquiries, they note that delays, vague mandates and political interference have all undermined effectiveness. Similarly, in Australia, the Institute of Public Administration reported that inquiries fail when they become vehicles for blame rather than instruments of institutional learning. New Zealand’s Law Commission also warned of the dangers of inquiry structures that lack coherence. In its 2008 review, it noted there was no consistent approach in the establishment, management or conduct of inquiries at the time. In its 2008 review, it noted there was no consistent approach in the establishment, management or conduct of enquiries at the time. It recommended greater codification, better rights protections and clearer rules of procedure, many of which mirror the features of the Bill now before this House. Dr. Scott Prasser, a leading academic in the field, has written extensively on the need to avoid “inquiry inflation” – where ad hoc inquiries proliferate without consistency, leading to public fatigue and institutional confusion. He stresses that inquiries should be exceptional events, not routine political reflexes. This Bill embodies that ethos by placing structure and procedure where there was once opacity and confusion. Madam Speaker, at the core of this Bill lies three essential objectives to enhance transparency, ensure procedural fairness and strengthen the legal foundations of public inquiries in Mauritius. First, the Bill enhances transparency and accountability. By mandating that inquiries be held in public – unless justified exceptions apply – and by requiring that final reports be published and tabled in the National Assembly, it ensures that the public is kept informed of matters of significant national concern. This will foster trust in the process and confidence in the institutions involved. Second, the Bill safeguards procedural fairness. It provides a structured, rights- respecting framework for how inquiries are to be conducted. Individuals whose rights or reputations may be affected are explicitly granted the right to be heard, to present their version of events and to respond to allegations.

92 Third, the Bill consolidates and clarifies the legal framework governing inquiries. It codifies the powers, responsibilities and limitations of the Board of Inquiry. This removes ambiguity, reduces the risk of politicization or procedural error and provides a clear roadmap for all actors involved – from the appointing authority to those summon to appear. In so doing, it modernises our public law architecture in a way that is aligned with modern democracies. Madam Speaker, let me now turn to the main features of the Bill, which are designed to achieve these objectives. Under clause 3, the Prime Minister may establish a Board of Inquiry where he considers that a particular event has caused, or may cause, public concern – or that there is significant public concern that such an event has occurred. This ensures inquiries are initiated where there is a genuine need for institutional scrutiny, grounded in the public interest. This approach is consistent with international models. In the United Kingdom, inquiries under the Inquiries Act of 2005 are set up by a Minister of the Crown. In Australia, similar discretion is vested in the Executive. The principle is the same: inquiries are initiated by elected leaders, who are accountable to Parliament and to the electorate for their decisions. What matters is not just the identity of the initiator, but the framework of transparency and oversight that surrounds that prerogative. In our case, this is addressed through Clause 6, which requires the Prime Minister to notify the National Assembly once a Board has been or will be set up. Clause 21 provides that the Board of Inquiry must submit its report to the Prime Minister upon completion of its work. Clause 22 then mandates that the report be tabled before the National Assembly and published within 30 days. This avoids the common problem of reports being shelved or selectively disclosed, and reinforces the duty of accountability to Parliament. The imposition of a deadline to submit a report, in Clause 5, will be an important break from the past. No longer will reports be left dans les tiroirs de qui que ce soit. Clause 4 requires that every Board of Inquiry operates under clear, defined terms of reference. These will set out the subject matter, scope and timeline for the enquiry. To further strengthen independence and clarity, Clause 8 provides that the Prime Minister must consult the appointed Chairperson before finalising the terms of reference. This consultation ensures

93 that the person responsible for managing the inquiry has the opportunity to shape its mandate – and is not merely handed a political script that he must follow. Subject to exceptions for confidentiality or public interest, proceedings are to be held in public. Members of the public, including the press, may access the proceedings and view the record of evidence. This not only builds legitimacy, but also guards against selective leaks, secrecy and political misrepresentation. As we have seen, a central weakness of the 1944 Act was its silence on individual rights. Clause 18 corrects this. Any person who reasonably believes that their reputation may be adversely affected by the inquiry is entitled to be heard and to give evidence in rebuttal. Madam Speaker, this codification of natural justice is one of the most critical features of this Bill. It mirrors the so-called ‘Maxwellisation’ process in UK law and directly addresses the recurring procedural failings that led to so many court decisions. Clause 5 draws an important line. A Board of Inquiry may not make a binding determination on civil or criminal liability, it is not a court of law. It does not pronounce guilt nor impose sanction. However, Clause 5 (2) rightly clarifies that the Board may still draw inferences based on the evidence it has gathered and may make recommendations. That is the nature of any investigative process: to form a view on the facts. This is no different from the position under the UK Inquiries Act of 2005, where inquiries are similarly prohibited from making formal legal findings, but may report on facts that point to misconduct or wrongdoing. This balance is essential, Madam Speaker. It protects individuals from judgment without trial, while allowing the State to learn, to recommend, and where necessary, to refer matters to the proper legal or disciplinary authorities. The Bill preserves the right of judicial review. As per Clause 30, anyone aggrieved by the findings of an inquiry may seek redress through the courts within 21 days. This ensures that inquiry powers are subject to legal limits, and that those affected have a clear procedural remedy where those limits are breached. Madam Speaker, let me be clear, Clause 32 (2) provides that all pending commissions under the old law shall lapse. This will apply to the Commission of Inquiry on the affreightment of Betamax. The Betamax case has been the subject of a long and expensive

94 litigation saga. An international arbitration tribunal, the Supreme Court, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have all examined the matter. And ultimately, the Privy Council found clearly that there was nothing improper about the contract. You cannot be clearer than that! Despite this, the previous government saw fit to establish a commission of inquiry into the very same matter, targeting, in particular, the current Prime Minister. If you want to know what is politically motivated, learn from the other side! That commission serves no real purpose. It has no legal justification. Its political agenda was clear for all to see. It was simply an exercise in retroactive blame. It cannot be allowed to carry on and to further waste public money. Madam Speaker, this Bill is not about shielding anyone from scrutiny. It is about ensuring that scrutiny is meaningful, lawful and fair. It puts an end to a model that has too often confused inquiry with prosecution or even persecution, and replaces it with a framework built on clarity, accountability and justice. In doing so, we uphold the values of due process institutional integrity and the rule of law. I, therefore, commend the Bill to the House. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

Thank you, hon. Minister! Yes, hon. Leader of the Opposition, the floor is yours! (4.37 p.m.) The Leader of the Opposition (Mr G. Lesjongard): Thank you, Madam Speaker for giving me the floor to intervene on this piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, timing and context are always important factors to be considered whenever a piece of legislation is proposed in the National Assembly. Concerning this piece of legislation, Madam Speaker, I believe it is my duty as Leader of the Opposition to voice out my concerns. We have a fundamental issue with the presentation of this Bill and my first remark is very pertinent. As compared to the Commission of Inquiry Act of 1944, in this

95 present Bill the Prime Minister is being given wide powers et une liberté sans limite par rapport à cette nouvelle législation. Madam Speaker, powers which this National Assembly had given to the President of the Republic since we have become a Republic, today, unfortunately, these powers are being taken away from the President in this Public Inquiries Bill. I refer to two specific sections: first, section 2 of the Commission of Inquiry Act on “Appointment of Commissions of Inquiry”, and I also refer to section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act entitled “Powers of the President” and I refer particularly to section 3(4) which says and I quote – “Any Commission may be altered or revoked by the President with the advice and consent of the Assembly, or by the President, as the case may be.” Madam Speaker, under clause 6 of this Bill, the Prime Minister has a duty to inform the National Assembly only, this time, when setting up the Commission of Inquiry. This Bill does not impose any duty on the Prime Minister to seek the advice and consent of this august Assembly. Madame la présidente, c’est un recul pour la transparence et le devoir envers cet auguste Assemblée. Et cet après-midi, Madame la présidente, nous allons voter une loi – et je pense que cela est une première – pour enlever les pouvoirs au président en ce qui concerne la mise sur pied d’une commission d’enquête et nous savons tous, Madame la présidente, qu’éventuellement après avoir voté cette législation, c’est le président qui aura a donné son assentiment à cette loi. I wish to refer the House, Madam Speaker, to section 65 of our Constitution where it is stated and I quote – “The Prime Minister shall keep the President fully informed concerning the general conduct of the government of Mauritius and shall furnish the President with such information as he may request with respect to any particular matter relating to the government of Mauritius.” À ce stade, Madame la présidente, je voudrais savoir si le président de la république a été consulté et s’il a donné son accord. Car au cas contraire nous pourrions nous retrouver face à un refus du président de la république de donner son assentiment à ce projet de loi et nous retrouver comme en février 2002 face à une crise constitutionnelle au plus haut sommet de l’État.

96 My second remark on this Bill, Madam Speaker, refers to the mode of setting up the Board of Inquiry. Again, one would expect that the President of the Republic, given his duty in the Constitution as the Head of State, that is, to uphold and defend the Constitution and to ensure that the Constitution, democracy and rule of law are respected, the President of the Republic would be the proper person to establish such a Board of Inquiry but it is not so any more in the piece of legislation we are debating today. Instead, Madam Speaker, it is only where the Prime Minister is of opinion that in the public interest or public welfare, that he would set up the Board of Inquiry. The President of the Republic as the Head of State does not have his say anymore. He is only called upon under clause 8(4) of the Bill to preside only the swearing ceremony of the members of the Board of Inquiry appointed by the Prime Minister. Madame la présidente, selon moi, le rôle du président de la république dans notre démocratie est en train d’être bafoué avec ce projet de loi et je pense, comme je l’ai dit, que c’est la première fois que les pouvoirs du président sont enlevés. Now, Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the preamble of this Bill, one should ask this question – what is the true objective of this Bill? And I hope, Madam Speaker, that it is not a political strategy against political opponents to the regime in the name of public concern or public interest.

(Interruptions)

Madam Speaker, you will agree that the role of the National Assembly is also insignificant now in this piece of legislation. One would expect that there might be a Board of Inquiry in the democratic society where Parliament is involved. However, from now on, the Prime Minister will decide of the setting up of a Board of Inquiry as per clause 3 of the Bill and with your permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to quote this specific clause 3, that is “Setting up of Board of Inquiry” and I quote – “Where the Prime Minister is of the opinion that – (a) a particular event has caused, or is capable of causing, public concern; or (b) there is public concern that a particular event may have occurred (…)” And as far as clause 3(a) is concerned, on the wording of “a particular event has caused”, my question to the Prime Minister is: is there any prescription as to time? How far back in time

97 can we go with this legislation, Madam Speaker? And here, I wish to know, is the Prime Minister, for example, of the opinion that the phone tapping scandal should be subjected to a public inquiry, and secondly, on the wording of “is capable of causing”, is that a wholly subjective test as to the Prime Minister’s belief? Are we made to understand that the setting up of a Board of Inquiry rests upon the Prime Minister’s capacity of pre-empting the future impacts of a particular event. The same queries, Madam Speaker, applies to clause 3(b) concerning the wording that “a particular event may have occurred”. So, are we made to understand that it may not have occurred but the setting up of a Board of Inquiry will still be justified? Madam Speaker, clearly here, the Prime Minister is being given extensive powers to set up boards of enquiries at will and therefore, through this legislation, will be the sole master with real time follow up first, of all proceedings and this is reflected in many Clauses. Now, Madam Speaker, allow me to quote Clause 7(2) which relates to suspension of an enquiry, I quote – “The Prime Minister shall, not later than 7 days after the completion of any investigation or determination of any civil or criminal proceedings under subsection (1)(a) or (b), as the case may be, order the Board of Inquiry to proceed with its inquiry.” With due respect, Madam Speaker, to our Constitution, we all know that civil or criminal proceedings take years to be fully determined and so, during such time, the Board of Inquiry would be suspended or in limbo if I may say. Madam Speaker, what if those civil or criminal proceedings, when finally determined, are unsuccessful and the targeted person or persons win the day? Should, in that case, the legislator not then impose upon the Prime Minister, the fate of that Board of Inquiry? Maybe, Madam Speaker, in similar lines to what Clause 4 that is, ‘Terms of reference of Board of Inquiry’ provides. Madam Speaker, also according to Clause 7 of the Bill, the two reasons provided under that Clause for suspension, I believe, are not sufficient. They are restrictive and the request of the Board for suspension should be broaden to include any valid reason put forward by the Board to request a suspension. At Section 4 (2), that is ‘Terms of reference of Board of Inquiry’, it is stated –

98 “The Prime Minister may, at any time, amend the terms of reference of a Board of Inquiry in the public interest or for the public welfare.” Je me pose la question, Madame la présidente, est-ce que cette section spécifique ne rend-t- elle pas légal l’interférence politique dans le déroulement des travaux d’une commission d’enquête ? Madame la présidente, la séparation des pouvoirs est un principe sacro-saint au sein de notre république et notre système judiciaire a toujours été respecté mais cette section du projet de loi nous interpelle. Un Premier ministre va pouvoir interférer dans les travaux présidés par un sitting judge ou un ancien juge. Madame présidente, la section 4 (3) fait référence aux consultations entre le président de la Commission et le Premier ministre avant tout changement aux termes de référence. And I quote Section 4 (3) – “The Prime Minister shall, before setting up or amending the terms of reference of a Board of Inquiry, consult the person he proposes to appoint, or has appointed, as Chairperson.” Une question se pose. Que va faire le Premier ministre si le président de la commission rejette cette demande de changement ? Va-t-on, à ce moment-là, révoquer le président de cette Commission ? Alors, si c’est les cas, dans un tel cas, est-ce qu’on verra un ancien juge ou un sitting judge être révoqué par un Premier ministre ? At Clause 32, Madam Speaker, the Bill provides that previous Commissions of Inquiry which is pending on the commencement of this Act should lapse but curiously enough, at Clause 3(3), it is envisaged that – “No Board of Inquiry shall be discontinued by reason of, or otherwise affected by, the Prime Minister’s absence or by him ceasing to hold office whether as a result of his death or for any other reason.” This is a blatant contradiction of the rationale behind the idea of maintaining the board of enquiries set up by precedent government as contemplated, Madam Speaker, in Clause 3(3) of the Bill. Madam Speaker, another issue which I want to bring to the attention of this House. We are in Mauritius. In Clause 8 (2) (b) which pertains to the composition of the Board of Inquiry, how close is close in the sentence “a close association with an interested party”?

99 Maybe we should determine the definition of close firstly. The Sub-Part (b) of the Bill on Evidence and Procedure is quite elaborate. However, notwithstanding the restrictions in Clause 14 under Clause 13 (1), it would be mandatory for the Chairperson shall take all reasonable steps as may be necessary to ensure that members of the public are able to – “(b) obtain or view a record of evidence given, and documents produced or provided, during such proceedings.” Whilst this is expressly stated, I presumed, Madam Speaker, that anyone being called by the Board of Inquiry will have the same entitlement that is, “to obtain or view a record of evidence given and documents produced or provided during such proceedings”. Now if this is the case, Madam Speaker, why not expressly say so in the Bill? Madam Speaker, let me refer to Clause 28(2) of the Bill and I believe our International Financial Centre is potentially as risk with this Clause. The hon. Attorney General is making a use of the doctrine of implied repeal in Clause 28 (2) of the Bill. Laws, Madam Speaker, such as the Banking Act and more specifically, banking secrecy, provided for example, in Section 64 of the Banking Act, which are being impliedly repealed – why not in full transparency? Tell this august Assembly which laws are being expected to be accepted in Clause 28(b)? Why not have a specific Clause in this Bill on consequential amendments as has been the cursus in this National Assembly? Madam Speaker, I sound this note of caution because our International Financial Centre is potentially at risk and I asked a question – has the Bank of Mauritius, the Financial Services Commission and the Mauritius Bankers Association been consulted? Madame la présidente, je vais conclure. Le gouvernement apporte des gros changements par rapport à une des Commissions les plus indépendantes de notre pays, une complète révision du système et qui touche directement la présidence de la république et donne les pouvoirs au Premier ministre. J’ai fait des recherches et je n’ai pas vu d’autres lois passées dans cette auguste Assemblée après que Maurice est devenu une République et qui enlèvent les pouvoirs ou prérogatives données au président de notre République. Le peuple mauricien doit prendre bonne note de cet affaiblissement des pouvoirs du président. L’avenir nous dira si la nouvelle commission sera un outil politique ou une institution indépendante.

100 Madame la présidente, j’en ai terminé.

Je vous remercie. I think we could break for tea if you agree. At 4.57 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.37 p.m. with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Please be seated! Hon. Minister of Labour, Mr Uteem! (5.38 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, allow me first of all to congratulate the Attorney-General for bringing this piece of legislation, and to wish him a prompt recovery. I thank hon. Shakeel Mohamed for having done his Second Reading and explaining the object of this Bill and how it is going to improve the current legislation. Before I deal with my speech properly, I would like to start by clearing a misunderstanding. The hon. Leader of the Opposition spent most of his speech criticising the Bill on the basis that apparently, we are taking away the power of the President. I do not blame him for that because he is not a lawyer. If he was a lawyer, he would have known that Section 64 (1) of the Constitution clearly provides, and I read, Madam Speaker, – “64 Exercise of President’s functions (1) In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other law, the President shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet except in cases where he is required by this Constitution to act in accordance with the advice of, or after consultation with, any person or authority other than the Cabinet or in his own deliberate judgment.” Section 64(1) of the Constitution lays down the residual rule. If the Constitution does not require the President to act in his own deliberate judgment, if the Constitution does not require the President to act upon the advice of a person, if the Constitution does not require the President to act after consultation with a person, the default provision is that the President has to act on the advice of Cabinet. The hon. Member would recall the former President of the Republic, Mrs Ameenah Gurib-Fakim, tried to set up a commission of enquiry on her own to investigate the ‘Sobrinho

101 Saga.’ What did the government of which she was a part of do? They set up their own commission of enquiry chaired by the former Chief Justice, Mr Caunhye. What did this commission of enquiry say in relation to the power of the President to institute a commission of enquiry? It is in paragraph 8.2 of the report of the commission of enquiry, I quote – “It is beyond dispute that Mrs Gurib-Fakim also violated section 64(1) of the Constitution when she set up the Commission of Inquiry on 16 March 2018. The Commission of Inquiry was set up pursuant to section 2(2) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act (...).” In a case more recently, in the case of Bhunjun and His Excellency the President of the Republic of Mauritius, same issue arose. This is what the Supreme Court says – “With regard to the facts of the present case, he recalled that the impugned decision is one taken by respondent no. 1, the President, acting on the advice of Cabinet in accordance with section 2(2) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1944. Therefore, such a decision is not one taken in his own deliberate judgment and the immunity conferred on respondent no. 1 by sections 30A and 64(5) of the Constitution is not applicable (...).” It is clear! The President does not have any power on his own to institute any commission of enquiry under the existing legislation. So, we are not taking anything which he does not have! In fact, we are simplifying things to avoid any confusion in the mind of a President, like Mrs Gurib-Fakim, who thought she had powers which she did not have! Now, it is clear! It is the Prime Minister. Previously, it was always going to be the Cabinet who decides. Now, it is the Prime Minister. I am sure the hon. Prime Minister will consult members of his Cabinet before he decides whatever he wants to do under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. So, we are not taking any powers of the President of the Republic, Madam Speaker. The other confusion raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition is, according to him, there seems to be an inconsistency in the Bill between Section 32 and Section 3. Section 32 provides – “32. Repeal

102 (2) Any Commission of Inquiry issued under the repealed Commissions of Inquiry Act and which is pending on the commencement of this Act shall lapse.” Section 3 (3) says – “(3) No Board of Inquiry shall be discontinued by reason of, or otherwise affected by, the Prime Minister’s absence or by him ceasing to hold office whether as a result of his death or for any other reason.” There is no inconsistency at all! Section 3 (3) is now an enabling provision which says that even if the person who appointed the Board of Inquiry now is no longer in office, that has no impact on the Board of Inquiry. It was already the case under the existing law. If there was change in the President, that would not have affected the working of the commission of inquiry. Now, coming to Section 32. To my knowledge, Madam Speaker, there is only one commission of enquiry which is still pending. It relates to the circumstances under which the contract of transport of petroleum products was awarded to Betamax. This issue, Madam Speaker, has been the subject of numerous PQs and PNQs in this House. Let me just remind hon. Members two things. On the issue of whether the contract was awarded in breach of the Public Procurement Act, in an answer to a PNQ, the hon. Minister of Commerce stated, and I quote – “Mr Speaker, Sir, the contract was awarded after STC was exempted from the Public Procurement Act and, I think, as a lawyer, the hon. Member should know.” Avek so foutan! As a lawyer, he should have known that there was exemption! Then, in answer to one of my PQs in 2011, I asked about whether they had received legal advice before signing the contract, the same hon. Minister stated – “In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the advice of the SLO was that the agreement is legally in order.” Let me remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Minister who was answering was hon. Showkutally Soodhun, president of the MSM Party! So, the Minister, himself, was saying that ‘the contract is valid and we received legal advice.’ An hon. Member: Vice-Prime Minister!

103

He was Vice-Prime Minister! But at that time, he was only a Minister. But what did they do? After they came into power in 2014, they decided to stop the contract. What did Betamax do? Betamax went to arbitration in Singapore. What did the Arbitrator say in Singapore? The Arbitrator said: ‘I have construed all the Public Procurement Act and regulations, and STC was exempted from the provisions of procurement legislation in respect of the contract awarded to Betamax.’ Now, STC was not happy with this arbitration. It went to the Supreme Court in Mauritius. The Supreme Court said that it was against public order. So, Betamax went to our highest court, Madam Speaker, which is the Privy Council. The Privy Council, in very elaborated details, a 41-page decision, concluded. The first issue was the Supreme Court was wrong. The first thing the Privy Council said – “The Supreme Court was wrong in reviewing the decision of the arbitrator because the arbitrator’s decision was final.” But nonetheless, the Privy Council went on and considered the merit and it said – “The arbitrator reached the right conclusion in the arbitral award on the exemption of the contract and reached the conclusion that it was not illegal.” So, now you have what has been said in this Parliament, that the contract was valid after receiving advice; what has been said in Singapore, in the arbitration, the arbitrator said that it was valid; what was said in Privy Council, that the contract was not illegal, it was exempt from the provisions of the Procurement Act and it was valid. Now, after all these matters have already been settled, the government decide to put in a commission of inquiry? Is that not a contempt of Court? Is that not showing disrespect for the decision of the highest Court of our land? And how can it justify that it is in the public interest? How can it justify that it is for the benefit of the people? The only thing that it means is harassing. It was the only purpose – and I am saying it here loud and clear – of this commission of inquiry was to harass who is now the Prime Minister of this country. So, what should we do? Continue to allow wastage of public funds? Continue to allow a Judge to come and question people over matters that have already been finally determined? There is nothing which the commission of inquiry can do today to reverse what has been said

104 and determined by the Privy Council. Wastage of public funds, but what is important, Madam Speaker, is that in answer to a PQ on 13 July 2021, the hon. Minister of Commerce informed the House that the STC has paid Rs5.58 billion in damages for legal and arbitration costs. And on top of this Rs5.5 billion, they had to pay Rs153 m. only in legal fees plus Rs75 m. for Betamax fees. So, we are talking about Rs6 billion of wasted funds. If we had these Rs6 billion, no doubt we would be able to reduce the price of petroleum products in this country. What we are doing today, Madam Speaker, is precisely to avoid any Government – not this Government – which comes to power, to try to use the commission of inquiry to harass political opponents. Today, the definition of the circumstances under which a commission of inquiry can be held is extremely wide under the existing section 2 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. Why is it wide? Because when the law was passed in 1944, I had read the Hansard, at that time there were five ordinances which were dealing with the issue of commission of inquiry. We are talking about pre-independence. After the independence, we had the Constitution. So, for example, what a commission of inquiry could do in terms of looking into the management of governing bodies, public bodies, looking into the conduct of a public officer, that has been taken over by statutory creatures, for example, the ombudsperson, under sections 96 and 97 of the Constitution. The ombudsperson has the power to investigate any action taken by any officer, any authority. Similarly, under section 110 of the Constitution, the Director of Audit audits all the public accounts and in doing so, he investigates the conduct and management of any department or any public service. The Public Accounts Committee also scrutinises how public funds are spent. So, we do not need a commission of inquiry today to investigate the conduct and management of a department or to investigate public officers. We still need, in certain cases, to have a Board of Inquiry. For example, where something has happened and there is a public concern. I will give an example. For example, what happened in Wakashio. Up to now, we still are not sure what happened in Wakashio. What happened during COVID-19, how decisions were taken, no proof, no paper, we only know that billions of rupees were spent. What happened to the patients? These are things where there is a real public concern and the public wants to know the truth. Here, what we can assure to this House and the population, Madam Speaker, is with this Government there will never be any cover-up. We will govern in transparency and when you look through this new Bill, there is a number of ways where we are making this Board of Inquiry more transparent.

105 The appointment, the Prime Minister, he does not in catimini go and negotiates with the Commissioner and settle their fees. He comes to Parliament, he makes a statement, he gives the terms of reference and after he gives that, all the hearings are done in public. Only exceptionally, the President of the Board can decide not to allow public presence. And once the report is completed on the set date, the Board gives the report to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister has 30 days to lay a copy of the report of the Board of Inquiry in Parliament. So, Members of Parliament will have a copy. It will be in the public domain. Any question can be asked by Members of the Parliament. This is what we want, transparency. That was not there in the existing Commissions of Inquiry Act. That is why we are changing it. You know, under the existing Commission of Inquiry Act, you did not have a timeframe. You can have commission of inquiries going on for years and years. For example, the commission of inquiry to look into the sale of the shares which BAI company held in Britam. This was setup, Madam Speaker, in May 2017 but when was the report published? In June 2021, four years later. No doubt because one of the members – and I will come to him shortly – was busy with other lucrative assignments. But now with this Bill, there is a timeline set. The commission of inquiry cannot go beyond this. If we give them one month, one year, they have to abide by this timeframe, cost. This morning during PMQT, the Prime Minister shocked the whole population, this House at least. You can tell the world, because I do not think in the entire world, we have seen someone who is a part-timer and he earns Rs286 m. as a part-timer? And he came and sat on that committee for a commission of inquiry and got Rs2.2 m. Now, the Prime Minister is going – under this Bill – to publicise. The amount is going to come from the Consolidated Fund. So, there will be transparency, everybody will know how much money is paid to commissioners, everybody can ask questions. The other novelty, conflict of interest. I am sorry I am going back again to the hon. Gentleman, Mr Sattar Hajee Abdoula. Mr Sattar Hajee Abdoula was handpicked by the former Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister is the one who gave advice to the President to make him an assessor. Who was Mr Sattar Hajee Abdoula? He was asked as a commissioner to determine whether the sales by BAI company, of its shares in Britam, Kenya, was done in a fair manner and we got value for it.

106 But who was Mr Hajee Abdoula? He was the administrator of BAI! He was the administrator of BAI, he is asking people to inquire. He is going to inquire on himself but above this, who was he? He was the Special Envoy of the Prime Minister who went – the boss – because you all heard the recording – and he asked Dawood Rawat to sell his empire for one rupee. How can you be so conflicted and yet, these were the types of people which the old regime would handpick to do Commissions of Inquiry because it was always politically motivated, they always wanted the Commission of Inquiry to give the result that they wanted to hear. With this Bill, no. With this Bill, now, the Commissioner of Inquiry, any members of the Board will have to make clear that they do not have any conflict of interest. It is in section 8(2), no direct interest in the matters under inquiry and no close association with any interested party. Madam Speaker, before resuming my seat, allow me to say just a few words, briefly, on what I consider to be the most important provision of this Bill. And this is the result of a long series of judicial pronouncement. It is in section 18 of the Bill – ‘Persons likely to be prejudicially affected to be heard’. Now, what happens in practice under the existing Commissions of Inquiry? The Commissioners hear a lot of people and then they publicise their report. And when they publicise their report, very often they make comments. Some of the comments are very hurtful, very unwarranted and then the people who feel aggrieved, they have to go to the Supreme Court, sometimes to the Privy Council, only to be told that the Commission of Inquiry ought not have put certain comments about their conduct without having given them the chance to be heard. So, today in this section 18, if at any point during an inquiry, the Board of Inquiry is of the view that a person’s reputation could be prejudicially affected, that individual must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. To use the wording of the Law Lords in the Privy Council case of Coomaravel Pyaneandee v Paul Lam Shang Leen & Others – “A person must be given a fair opportunity to worthwhile evidence and make representations on his own behalf.” It is an elementary rule of fairness and natural justice and to make it clear, I will give an example so that everybody understands what I am talking about. If during a Commission of Inquiry on drugs, you have a notorious drug trafficker, Peeroomal Veeren and he comes to say

107 that the Leader of a leading political party is financing the import of drugs, then that person should now, under this Act, have the right to be heard and clear his name. Under the existing law, they did not have this option. So, Madam Speaker, this Bill is really a big avancé today. It represents a profound reform, offering our country a new modern legal framework with the necessary checks and balances to ensure transparency, fairness and impartiality in investigation of matters of public concern. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister! Yes, hon. Ramdass! (6.00 p.m.) Mr A. Ramdass (Third Member for Vieux Grand Port & Rose Belle): Merci, Madame la présidente. Madame la présidente, d’abord permettez-moi de féliciter l’honorable Attorney General, ainsi que le ministre des Terres et du logement pour avoir tenu notre promesse électorale...

The Ag. Attorney General!

The hon. Attorney General and hon. Minister des Terres et du logement…

What I am saying...

And also, Ag. Attorney General indeed...

That’s it!

…pour avoir tenu notre promesse électorale et présenté devant cette auguste Assemblée, seulement six mois après notre élection, ce projet de loi. Un projet de loi, Madame la présidente, qui a pour but entre autres de restaurer un climat de responsabilité et de restaurer un climat de transparence dans la gestion des fonds publics. Et cela, Madame la présidente, à la lumière des excès de l’ancien régime. L’ancien régime qui n’a pas manqué de subtiliser une loi prédatant notre indépendance pour véhiculer un agenda imminemment politique. Madam Speaker, it is indeed remarkable, if not concerning, that for more than 80 years now, the Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1944 has remained the main legal mechanism for

108 investigating matters of public concern. This Act, Madam Speaker, in fact, the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1944, conceived during the colonial era, reflects a time when Mauritius had yet to emerge as a sovereign democracy and as our society evolves, Madam Speaker, our norms do evolve as well. Our values evolve as well, our expectations evolve as well and the law, Madam Speaker, makes no exception and ought to evolve with it as well. And a legal framework, Madam Speaker, cannot remain static while the society which it is meant to serve keeps on advancing. In fact, the presentation of this Public Inquiries Bill, Madam Speaker, is therefore not only timely but also a necessity. And in fact, it is a clear reaffirmation of our national commitment to transparency, accountability and good governance. Madam Speaker, in respect of the prescribed timeframe under the Bill, we must be candid. Mauritius has for far too long witnessed Commissions of Inquiry that have, in fact, been undermined by perceptions of political motives, excessive delays and, in fact, outright suppression of findings, Madam Speaker. Some inquiries, Madam Speaker, have been extended for years without any conclusive outcome. In fact, others have simply been discontinued without any explanation whatsoever. And in fact, Madam Speaker, je me réjouis particulièrement du fait que sous les clauses 4 et 7 du présent projet de loi, les Terms of reference du Board of Inquiry institués par le Premier ministre, peuvent maintenant préciser, comme l’a dit l’honorable ministre du Travail avant moi, la date à laquelle le Inquiry Report sera soumis ; tout en offrant bien évidemment la possibilité à l’honorable Premier ministre de modifier ces Terms of reference quand l’intérêt public le requiert. Ce qui suppose donc la possibilité d’étendre l’échéance de l’enquête en question pour des motifs justifiables. And the Public Inquiries Bill, Madam Speaker, therefore introduces greater discipline into this process. It delineates responsibility and it clearly places appropriate limits on the political discretion. And in fact, this novel provision, Madam Speaker, has the merit of striking on the one hand, the right balance between the executive authority and on the other hand, public accountability, and in fact, a hallmark to any robust democracy. Madam Speaker, in respect of the holding of proceedings in public, clauses 13 and 14 for example, establish the presumption that inquiry proceedings will be conducted in public. Those who have spoken before me have spoken lengthily about it, and in fact, it sets out the presumption that inquiry – as I said – will be conducted in public, unless of course, valid

109 exceptions apply. And this move towards openness, Madam Speaker, enhances the public trust and ensures that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. And the provisions for public notices and the possibility of public engagement strengthens, in fact, this transparency further. And in fact, moving as decisively away from the secretive manner in which inquiries were conducted in the past, and I am making reference here to the past ten years during which this country was led by the MSM. Madam Speaker, in respect to the provisions for reports to be made public, in fact, in a much-welcomed move, clauses 21 and 22 of the Bill provide firstly for the mandatory tabling of the inquiry report before the National Assembly, and secondly, for the mandatory publication of every report of every Board of Inquiry in the official Government Gazette, thus allowing for publicity. And I must say, Madam Speaker, that under the old Commissions of Inquiry Act 1944, there was no obligation whatsoever on the Commission of Inquiry to publish its report. Neither was there any obligation on the President of the Republic to cause any such report to be published. And this in fact, in my very humble view, Madam Speaker, went against the very nature of such inquiries which are meant to address issues of public concern, of public interest and of public welfare which are conducted using public funds. Madam Speaker, in fact, this Bill addresses this very issue in a very straightforward manner, leaving no possibility or whatsoever for any derogation from the principle that every inquiry report must be released to the public through publication in the Government Gazette. Hence, leaving absolutely no room for any opacity and lack of accountability. This is precisely what this Government wishes to promote, Madam Speaker. Now, in respect of the delay to ask for a review, Madam Speaker, it is noteworthy that clause 30 of the Bill reduces the delay for the institution of judicial review proceedings against any finding of the inquiry from the usual three months under common law to now 21 days. This delay of 21 days, Madam Speaker, starts to run from the date of the publication of the inquiry report in the Government Gazette. This is, Madam Speaker, in my very humble view, yet another move to show the Government’s intention to reach finality within the shortest possible delay. In fact, the hon. Minister of Labour has spoken about this before me in respect of persons who are likely to be prejudiced when their names are cited before the Commission of Inquiry. This Bill, Madam Speaker, upholds the rights of witnesses, and it is a very good thing that it does. In fact, clause 16 of the Bill guarantees the right to legal representation. We

110 will note that clause 18 of the Bill guarantees the right to respond to evidence presented before the inquiry. This, in fact, represents, Madam Speaker, a significant step forward in ensuring procedural fairness and protecting individuals from reputational harm based on unchecked allegations. In fact, the hon. Minister of Housing and Lands had set out a series of judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of Mauritius in respect of the necessity of those whose names have cited to be given the opportunity to defend themselves. Et je dois dire, Madame la présidente, qu’en tant qu’avocat, j’accueille favorablement cette clause 18 du projet de loi qui requiert qu’un Board of Inquiry en fait permet à tout individu dont la réputation pourrait être impactée par l’exercice d’être auditionné par le Board et de soumettre des éléments de preuves pour se défendre. Et soulignons, par ailleurs, Madame la présidente, que le droit de donner sa version afin de protéger sa réputation était toujours le droit commun de tout individu. Mais ce projet de loi, Madame la présidente, à la clause 18, entérine ce droit de la façon la plus claire et de manière à ne plus laisser d’incertitudes quant à son application aux commissions d’enquêtes. Cette provision, Madame la présidente, permet de faire une balance, d’une part, entre les attentes du public à un processus transparent, et d’autre part, le droit de chaque individu à la protection de son image, de son intégrité, de sa réputation. Madame la présidente, nous nous rappelons tous de la commission d’enquête qui avait été instituée par le gouvernement MSM sur la drogue. L’institution d’une commission d’enquête qui avait pour but tout, mais vraiment tout, sauf combattre le fléau de la drogue qui gangrénait et qui gangrène toujours notre société, Madame la présidente. Une commission d’enquête qui avait été instituée par le MSM à des fins bassement politiques afin de marquer des points politiques, sans la moindre vision pour les jeunes de ce pays. Madame la présidente, nous sommes tous, ici, politiciens. Nous faisions tous de la politique, probablement à l’exception de vous-même.

Exactement !

Et nous souhaitons tous être réélus. C’est un peu le souhait de tous, bien évidemment, si nous sommes confiés d’une nouvelle investiture pour les prochaines élections. Nous souhaitons tous être réélus, Madame la présidente, mais pas à n’importe quel prix.

111 De ce côté de la Chambre, Madame la présidente, contrairement au précédent régime, nous sommes résolument contre l’idée de voter des lois dans le but uniquement de satisfaire un agenda politique. Bien au contraire, Madame la présidente, nous sommes plutôt pour une législation qui cadre avec la vision de ce gouvernement, qui cadre avec les attentes de cette population, et surtout, celles de la nouvelle génération. Donc, en guise de conclusion, Madame la présidente, je dirais ceci: this Bill is not merely a legislative reform. It is a statement of our values, a signal to the people of this country that the institutions of our democracy are being modernised to meet contemporary standards of justice and integrity. The Commission of Inquiry Act 1944, Madam Speaker, belongs to a bygone era. The present Bill, in fact, reflects the Mauritius we have become. It reflects the democratic future we are striving to build for this country. So, let us seize this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to turn the page on outdated colonial frameworks. Let us embrace a new legal structure, a new legal architecture that strengthens democracy, transparency, that protects our rights and especially that reinforces public trust. The enactment of this Bill, Madam Speaker, is not simply beneficial. It is a necessity. I, therefore, fully support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Hon. Narsinghen! (6.12 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade (Mr H. Narsinghen): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the floor. In fact, before starting with my speech, I would like to make some comments on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. J’étais très surpris par le discours du leader de l’opposition. En fait, un tiers de son discours était axé sur les pouvoirs du président de la République. Et, malheureusement, pour l’autre tiers de son discours, il est complètement passé à côté de la plaque. Un tiers de son discours était axé sur une sorte de démagogie. J’attendais mieux de lui pour venir avec des suggestions beaucoup plus intéressantes. Malheureusement, je suis resté sur ma faim. Et un

112 tiers aussi de son discours, malheureusement, il a parlé dans la généralité sans venir avec des dispositions concrètes de la nouvelle loi. Now, here again, Madam Speaker, once again Government is coming with a new Bill. As mentioned by the Acting Attorney General, it is not a mere cosmetic change. As you can see, Madam Speaker, in a span of six months, in an unprecedented manner, Government has come up with a string of legislations to consolidate democracy, human rights, transparency, accountability, equity, and above all, good governance. Never in parliamentarian history have we witnessed with such a zeal to reposition Mauritius as a cradle of democracy and good governance. In fact, Madam Speaker, we want to regain our prime position in Africa, in the whole world, regarding accountability and transparency. Accountability and transparency are subsets of democracy and good governance. We want Mauritius to be Mauritius, not a banana republic as it has been for the past 10 years. Now, what are the expectations in a modern society? It is high time to repeal an outdated law dating from 1944. The Commission of Inquiry Act cannot respond to the needs of a modern society where transparency and accountability have become supra-constitutional concepts. As you know, Madam Speaker, as a seasoned barrister, separation of powers, for example, is not clearly stipulated in the Constitution, but it is underlying. Likewise, in many modern constitutions, transparency, accountability and good governance are underlying constitutional principles. These principles form part of the architecture of the Constitution of Mauritius. Not only in Mauritius, but in most of the countries championing good governance. We have witnessed recently, for the past 10 years, a sort of instrumentalization of commission of inquiry to target political opponents. We have also seen overpoliticization of this important tool to promote accountability and transparency, into a lethal political weapon. We must understand the rationale behind the previous law and also the new law. First and foremost, it is meant to seek the approximate truth when there is a matter of public importance, focusing on public interest. This is what, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has not been able to understand. He is referring to subjective interest. In fact, when we are using this concept of public interest, it brings more objectivity. The Prime Minister will have to base himself on public interest before triggering any Board of

113 Inquiry and also take into consideration national interest as opposed to mere petty political interest, partisan interest and subjective interest. The change from a Commissions of Inquiry Act to the Public Inquiries Bill is not a mere change of title, it is a paradigm shift. It is not just a change of title or name, but it lays emphasis on public interest. Now, regarding the targeting of political opponents, I will take only two recent examples. The previous government as you know, Madam Speaker, had a sort of compulsive obsession to finish off/annihilate the actual Prime Minister. Who will not remember as alluded to by the Minister of Labour, the case of Betamax? Who will not remember that case? The international arbitrator came to confirm that there was nothing wrong with the allocation of contract, yet the previous government appealed against this decision at the level of the Supreme Court. The latter reversed the decision of the arbitrators. The matter went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In a blockbuster decision, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council gave a sort of slap to the previous government, and incidentally, also to the reasoning of the then Chief Justice. Surprisingly, even after the slap of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, government dared to set up a Commission of Inquiry on the whole matter. This capricious and vicious decision was not only a pathological obsession against Dr. Navinchandra Ramgoolam but also – I want to lay emphasis – a direct attack on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, incredible but true with the previous regime. The second example – it’s good to take that second example – is how the previous Prime Minister tried to settle scores with the previous President of the Republic, Mrs Gurib- Fakim Ameenah. Here also, it is also good to underscore the confusion regarding the powers to set up a Commission of Inquiry. Regarding the Commission of Inquiry, you cannot look at it in isolation and this is the mistake done by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, you have to read the Commission of Inquiry Act along with section 64 (1) of the Constitution as explained clearly by the Minister of Labour. In fact, it must be read in conjunction. In a nut shell, only in a few instances, the President can act – the hon. Leader of the Opposition has to listen carefully – has to act in his own deliberate judgement and also after consultation. In other circumstances, the President is bound to act upon the advice of Cabinet or the Prime Minister or other authorities. The present Bill comes to cure a sort of confusion, in fact, and it designates the Prime Minister as the sole authority to appoint a public inquiry.

114 On the Sobrinho’s scandal, we were on the verge of a constitutional crisis. The Leader of the Opposition was referring to the supposedly crisis in 2002 but we were on the verge of a crisis, because there was confusion and this Bill, this time, is trying to remedy this confusion which existed under the previous law. This is very important. Why did I take the second example? It is to show, just as in the case of late Mr Kistnen haunting the MSM, how they can instrumentalise, weaponise certain tools to kill their own people, and this is very sad. Now, let me, Madam Speaker, take some concrete examples to show how this present Bill is an improvement when we compare it with the Commission of Inquiry Act. First, you will see section 3 clearly defines public interest whereas before, this was not defined. Now concerning section 10 to 12, we are going to see there are certain procedural safeguards and the 2025 Bill, this time, offers stronger rights and protection for participants including fairness and transparency throughout the inquiry process. Now regarding judicial review, in fact, it was possible under the purview of the previous law to have a judicial review but this time under the empire of the new law, this is explicit that people within a span of 21 days can have recourse to judicial review. Now, regarding the terms of reference. Before, Madam Speaker, the terms of reference were being dictated only by the Prime Minister whereas this time, the terms of reference can be discussed; the Prime Minister can discuss with the Chairperson who will be appointed and then decide on the terms of reference. So, definitely, Madam Speaker, there are a number of improvements in the present Bill and one last point. There is a very good point, very important and interesting point which has been included in the new Bill, that is – the Commission of Inquiry is being equipped with more tools, that is, the Bank will have to make a disclosure. I don’t know now whether the Leader of the Opposition is afraid, is scared. So many scandals by the previous government that he is a bit scared that we can open the pandora’s box. This is very unfortunate. So, the Leader of the Opposition can rest assured that this Government means business. The Prime Minister is a responsible person. People who are going to be appointed for future Commissions of Inquiry are going to do their job. We are not going to do ‘la chasse aux sorcières’ like they did in the past, for sure. You can rest assured, hon. Leader of the Opposition. Thank you.

115

(Interruptions)

I don’t know what you are saying. You were trying to raise a point of order, Mr A. Duval?

Yes, I was only drawing your attention to the fact that he was imputing motives which is not proper.

Yes, but you can’t do that by sitting down and talking to me as if we are in a sitting room somewhere. You have to stand up and make your point of order. Now, you have the floor! (6.23 p.m.) Mr A. Duval (Fourth Member for Port Louis North & Montagne Longue): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, first of all, laissez-moi dire qu’il est regrettable de constater que l’opposition recule ici sur l’ordre des orateurs qu’autrefois été coutume qu’on puisse parler à la fin, clôture…

(Interruptions)

Jamais, jamais, jamais !

…le débat et le changement qui a été promis n’est pas celui qui a été apporté et on se réfère aujourd’hui sur les mauvaises pratiques. Alors qu’ici même, moi- même j’ai eu l’occasion de parler avant le Premier ministre parce qu’il y a la coutume de pouvoir clôturer les débats pour l’opposition. Mais il est regrettable de constater. Madame la présidente…

May I? Will you sit down? I want to inform hon. Members that the Leader of the Opposition and Mr A. Duval came to see me and asked me if it was possible for Mr A. Duval to speak after hon. Minister Subron. I took time and I went and found out what the practice has been. It seems from what I gathered – I was not here – that in the past, there has been no such practice, but on the contrary – what some people are saying here – I learnt that many Members of Government were speaking last and not…

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Four!

116

Okay! Don’t shout while I am talking! Don’t shout while I am talking!

Li ti met mwa katriem mem la …

There was a queue!

Do not fight each other while I am on my feet. Okay, so I took this and I spoke to the hon. A. Duval at tea time and I told him that he will have to speak before as, unfortunately, – that is very important – I am not the one who decides. I want to make this clear. The Whips are supposed to meet each other and every time we have this problem in the House, you better find out once and for all, it’s not for the Speaker to decide. The Whips must come to an agreement. If they don’t come to an agreement, it’s just too bad. I can’t do any better. So, now you have the floor, please take the floor on the Bill!

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was indeed fourth, until I protested. But tout le monde est libre de constater où est le changement…

No more comments on this!

Alors, Madame la présidente, this Bill is a step in the wrong direction. I will stress on that, wrong direction, Madam Speaker…

Pas par limpos inn rantre !

There are many good measures granted.

Let him speak, please!

Many good measures. I will start with the good measures and then I will dwell on why it is a step in the wrong direction. Many good measures. I will start with the good measure and then, I will dwell on why it is a step in the wrong direction. The good measure is to bring it to Parliament. Yes. This is what is expected in a democratic society –for Commissions of Inquiries which are in the hands of the Prime Minister to be made public. Yes, that is one good thing. There are other good things with this Bill, Madam Speaker. There is the right of appearance for those who are the subject of criticisms or remarks by the Commissions of Inquiry. Yes, that is also a good

117 thing. Let us note that under the previous law, the Commissions of Inquiry had the liberty to make its own rules and could allow for anyone to appear before it. And, also, the other good thing about this law before I start with the rest is, Madam Speaker, for the time limit to be imposed upon setting the terms of reference because Commissions of Inquiry have, in the past, been going on and on and then the report, has again slept dans les fonds des tiroirs. So, this is a good thing. Madam Speaker, and this will be the crux of my intervention, this could have been brought with amendments to the existing law and those things that were not stipulated in the law but that were done in practice, for example, judicial review, were already well established. For example, contrary to what hon. Uteem, has said ‘payment into consolidated funds’, this is already provided in the existing law but, Madam Speaker, it is a step in the wrong direction because we are now taking the power away from Cabinet, giving advice to the President and giving solely to the Prime Minister. Under the actual law, the President acts on the advice of Cabinet an appoints a Commission and all those issues that are determined by the President are done acting upon the advice of Cabinet and my friend, hon. Uteem, is absolutely right when he quotes the Section of the Constitution 64 (1) which narrows down, interprets the powers of the President when he acts on the advice of Cabinet, when he acts in his own deliberate judgment etc. And this has again been a taken into great details by the recent Commission of Inquiry on the setting up of the Commission of Inquiry by the President. Madam Speaker, therefore, the Mauritian public has to understand that, under the actual law, it is not merely the Prime Minister who decides that he wants to appoint this or that person or that he wants the Commission of Inquiry to have such and such terms of reference or that he eventually wants to amend the terms of reference or that for example, he wants to allow for the payment of fees or not. It is not simply the Prime Minister; it is a collective decision taken by Cabinet, deliberated upon by Cabinet and then upon the advice given to the President, the President thereafter effectively acts on this advice. But there are two layers which we are removing here; two layers of control if we can say. An hon. Member: Initil!

Inutile for some.

118 The fist layer, it is Cabinet collective responsibility where the matter has to be debated and decided upon. And all those powers which we see in the Act, which are now being given to the Prime Minister, used to be enjoyed by the President acting on the advice of Cabinet. So, that was the first layer. And then the second layer, of course, being the President himself because let us not forget, the President has the responsibility; a constitutional responsibility. According to Section 28 (1) (b) of the Constitution, he has the duty – “(b) uphold and defend the Constitution and ensure that (i) institutions of democracy and the rule of law are protected; (ii) the fundamental rights of all are respected; and (iii) the unity of the diverse Mauritian nation is maintained and strengthened.” So, at all time, the President of the Republic must ensure that whatever he does, is in accordance with section 28 (1) (b). And contrary to what the hon. Uteem said, it is not merely a rubber stamp decision because we forget. He knows that better than anyone else that the President may refuse and resign, sure, like his father did, himself but he may refuse if he does not agree and thereafter resign in protestation. That is what we had under the actual law. And, now what will we have? We will have a Prime Minister who will enjoy sole discretion to set up a Commission of Inquiry… An hon. Member: He is the Leader of the House!

… as Prime Minister who will not have to consult Cabinet to appoint any member as Commissioner, a Prime Minister who can, and I say a Prime Minister because we are changing the law not for one Prime Minister but for any Prime Minister; a Prime Minister who will be able to revoke any members of the Commission if they fall for any reasons stated in the law and some of these reasons are very vague, Madam Speaker, like the Leader of the Opposition has said. If you look at Section 9 (3), – “The Prime Minister may, at any time, terminate the appointment of a member on the ground that – (c) the member has – (ii) a close association with an interested party;” This is very vague, Madam Speaker, but then there are other issues. The fact, for example, Madam Speaker, the Secretary to Cabinet appoints the Secretary to the Commission

119 when we know the key sensitive function of a Secretary to the Commission who holds all the documentations, all the evidences; who knows of the agenda of the Commission, who knows of all the intricate and fine details of where the inquiry is leading up to. And when you appoint the Secretary yourself, through the Secretary to Cabinet, then il y a un risque d’interférence et d’influence énorme, Madame la présidente. It did not use to be like that. The President used to appoint the Secretary himself. Usually, although the law did not provide for it but when you look at the various Commissions that have been set up, you will see often, it is headed by members of the judiciary and their secretaries, judicial secretaries or appointed as Secretary to Commissions. Therefore, it implies that before appointing, the President would consult with the Commission and it ought to have been like that, Madam Speaker. Like, hon. Shakeel Mohamed has rightfully stated that in New Zealand, in Canada, in Australia, he has quoted that there is a risk of political interference. That is the worst of the worst to guarantee that a Commission can do its job properly and function properly. He is right but then we must look at what Canada, New Zealand and Australia has done. Does the Prime Minister there have the power to appoint, to revoke, to withhold payment? No! It is done through the same mechanism that we have under the existing law. The Governor in Council, in Canada, in New Zealand and in Australia, the equivalent of the President appoints. Governor in Council being of course Cabinet which decides and then in Australia for example, in New Zealand, in Canada, Cabinet takes the decision. It is the same mechanism that is done the same, virtually the same; not the Prime Minister. And there, Madam Speaker, it is not Secretary to Cabinet who appoints members including Secretary to Commissions there. They are given full autonomy and independence to appoint their own staffs, their own Advisers and their own secretaries. If we wanted to give the forthcoming Board of Inquiry’s proper independence – functioning independence, we ought to have at least consulted them with whom to appoint. That, Madam Speaker, is another reason why it is a step in the wrong direction. We need to ask ourselves: how is this new Act going to facilitate shedding light on the truth? Are we doing that? When we know that in this House, time and time again, Ministers, Prime Ministers have so often relied on investigations. Hon. Yeung Sik Yuen has done that early on! They relied on investigations so as not to give information and not to give certain documents.

120 We know that this House has seen so many unfortunate occurrences. Therefore, there are questions that arise. Given now, under this law, there is no provision, for example, for Parliamentary Questions to be answered in Parliament on those subject matters. The question must be begged. Will the hon. Prime Minister undertake to answer questions on any investigations that are ongoing or that have been suspended because there is provision to suspend investigations with other investigations. So, will the hon. Prime Minister…

That are ongoing, you said? Ongoing investigation?

Or suspended. So, will any sort of information be provided on the subject? Or once an investigation is set up, will it be like it has been in the past? Will it simply be a blanket to remove altogether the duty and the power of Parliament to scrutinise? We all remember in the past, since the creation of ICAC and before that, how many investigations have slept in the drawers. An hon. Member: Dimann Joe!

But then, when we give all the power and control to one person, do we really rid ourselves of those risks? That is another question. So, Madam Speaker, the previous law was not flawless. Again, it could have been amended. Instead, we are throwing the baby out of the bath water. We are doing away with the law. The reasons being put forward by the hon. Ag. Attorney-General is, amongst other, found in the institution of the Betamax Commission of Inquiry of being a farce, etc. But, Madam Speaker, I am not going to go into the merit of a commission of inquiry which is ongoing and which is being led by a member of the Judiciary.

Gete ki papa ti al dir laba!

(Interruptions)

…which is being led by a member of the Judiciary, who has spent months, years…

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Years?

(Interruptions)

121

…doing extensive work.

(Interruptions)

Years!

(Interruptions)

Extensive work! An hon. Member: Akoz samem nou pe rod sanz li!

And who must simply now accept the mandate of that commission to be repealed with this Act, without any sort of transitional provision, allowing him to finish his work within some sort of time frame, without any chance of coming up with a report. It is not true to say that the findings of the arbitral award of Betamax cover all the items under the term of reference. I am not going to make that case here. I am only replying to what has been said. It is simply not true to say that because of the arbitral award and the findings of the arbitral court, this commission of inquiry must simply be done away in this manner – d’une manière irrespectueuse à un membre du judiciaire. That is regretful, Madam Speaker. I think that it ought to have been allowed.

(Interruptions)

Let him speak, please!

(Interruptions)

It ought to have been allowed like any other Act which comes to be repealed.

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: To pan demann bolom la!

(Interruptions)

It ought to be allowed like in any other Bills whose purpose is to repeal a previous one, a transitional provision. No coercion should have been made for that.

(Interruptions)

That, Madam Speaker, is regretful!

122 This is why it is important to speak when you are in the Opposition – to be able to reply. This is why, usually, we want to reply after the last possible intervenor has done so. In reply to hon. Narsinghen, he is mistaken. The terms of reference being decided solely by the hon. Prime Minister is under this Bill. The consultations being done prior by the hon. Prime Minister with Cabinet was done under the existing law. But the terms of reference now being decided is solely by the hon. Prime Minister. It is under this Bill. So, he is mistaken when he is talking about un advancement dans ce sens. C’est tout le contraire, Madame la présidente. Je lui ai dit, pour moi, nous reculons, Madame la présidente. Il n’y a aucune raison été mis de l’avant pour justifier la concentration du pouvoir autour des commissions d’enquête dans les mains de l’honorable Premier ministre alors que nous avons un mécanisme bien établi qui fonctionne dans tous les pays du Commonwealth de renom – le Canada, la Nouvelle-Zélande, l’Australie. Ou, comme je l’ai expliqué, avec le cabinet, le conseil des ministres, la décision collective, la responsabilité collective avec le président de la République, qui lui aussi, à la fin de la journée, a le pouvoir de refuser s’il le souhaite. Quitte à partir, cela rajoute quand même deux couches de garantie. Donc, Madame la présidente, …

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Time over!

Vingt minutes!

Time is up!

Madame la présidente,…

You are concluding, of course.

Yes, thank you. Madame la présidente, for all the reasons that have been given, I think people will now fear to come and depone more so than before. Because do not forget that commissions of inquiry are usually, in a democratic country, set up to investigate acts and doings against the government of the day. But now that there is the risk of interference, as I have said, with the appointment of the Secretary to the Commission…

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Incroyable!

123

(Interruptions)

Do not repeat!

(Interruptions)

It will not, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, help at all our meagre ranking in Transparency Mauritius. It will not help us improve, unfortunately! Not this sort of legislation! I think it is a step backward. It is, in fact, Madam Speaker, regrettable that we could not change the existing law.

You have said that three times!

(Interruptions)

Madame la présidente, ….

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Pa Pravind ki la!

(Interruptions)

Try to conclude!

I am concluding. I think, Madame la présidente, le pays ne s’en sortira pas du tout gagnant. Merci.

Je vous en prie. Alors, maintenant, l’honorable ministre de la Sécurité sociale ! (6.46 p.m.) The Minister of Social Integration, Social Security and National Solidarity (Mr A. Subron): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will come back to the speech of the hon. Leader of the Opposition and hon. A. Duval later. First of all, let me say that this Bill opens a wind of change. This Government brings yet another visionary tool to reshape public interest issues in Mauritius. The Public Inquiries Bill, which will replace a more than 80 years old Commission of Inquiry Act, heralds a significant shift on how matters of public interest and public importance will henceforth be investigated for the benefit and betterment of the Mauritian society and its people.

124 My party, Rezistans ek Alternativ, as a partner in the Alliance du Changement, fully supports this Bill. A Commission of Inquiry is one of the many bodies available to a country to inquire into various public interest issues, sometimes on controversial ones. Commission or Board of Inquiry reports findings, gives advice and makes recommendations. While the findings are not legally binding, they can be highly influential and act as drivers of societal progress. Commissions of Inquiry reflect social movements and social concerns of particular moment in time. Madam Speaker, Commissions of Inquiry can be great tool of social emancipation and progress. In Mauritius, social upheavals against the harsh exploitation under colonial capitalism produced two major colonial commissions of inquiry. The dialectics of social struggles and colonial commissions of inquiry laid the foundation of social progress in Mauritius. After the major upheavals, riots, strikes in various parts in Mauritius in 1937 which resulted in the killing of three labourers, the British colonial government instituted the Hooper Commission of Inquiry. The Hooper Commission lifted the ban on workers to organise and gave birth to the right for the workers of Mauritius to unionise in 1938. The 1943 strike of labourers when Anjalay Coopen and her comrades lost their lives, prompted the colonial government to institute the Moody Commission of Inquiry in 1944. The Moody Commission paved the way for the genesis of the welfare system in Mauritius and the birth of local democracy in rural Mauritius through the creation of village councils. We can also refer to some examples in other countries. In South Africa a variant of the Commission of Inquiry was set up in 1996 after the end of apartheid. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa was a court-like restorative justice set up by Nelson Mandela and chaired by Desmond Tutu. The Commission invited witnesses, who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations, to give statement about their experiences and selected some for public hearings. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from both civil and criminal prosecution. The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation was established in 2000 as the successor organisation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. In Australia, prompted by public outcry over the high number of indigenous deaths in custody during the 1980s, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was set up. It investigated 99 cases between 1980 and 1989. While it found no evidence of unlawful killings, it highlighted systemic issues such as inadequate care and the impact of alcohol abuse. The Commission made 399 recommendations aimed at reducing indigenous

125 incarceration and improving custodial conditions. Here again, we see the dialectical relations between historical socio-struggles and institutional commission of inquiry resulting in social emancipation and/or human rights advancements. Madam Speaker, yet commissions of inquiries or boards of inquiry can be and have been used as tools against political opponents. While the primary purpose of such commissions is to investigate matters of public interest and improve recommendations, they can be strategically manipulated to target and undermine political rivals. For instance, a commission might be established to investigate a particular matter but its terms of reference can be subtly designed to ensnare a specific political figure or party. The commission’s findings, regardless of their validity, can be used to damage the reputation or political standing of the target even if there are no actual wrong doing. Examples are numerous in many countries and in Mauritius, too. The latest two of such politically motivated commissions of inquiry in Mauritius being the Betamax Commission of Inquiry and the Commissions of Inquiry set up in the context of the institutional crisis, the tug of war, under the previous regime, between the Presidency and the then Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, I support this Bill for the following reasons. Many of the reasons have been highlighted by my colleagues and hon. Members. The first one is the updating of an 80 years old law. I am very surprised to hear hon. Adrien Duval saying that we must amend an 80 years old law and not come with a new legislation. This decontextualises constitutional evolution in Mauritius and laws in Mauritius. We cannot just take something dated 88 years and just plug in amendments like this; you decontextualise the law evolution. It is very important to come with a new law because, precisely, the same inherent residual inconsistencies and clumsiness since the advent of independence and the Republic in 1992, needed to be addressed and cleared in law so as to leave no ambiguities, no misuse, as we have seen in the last wrangle under the previous regime, between the Presidency and the Prime Minister, event which occurred in 2018. First, let us mention that the Constitution, as my colleague mentioned, with the advent of the Independence in 1968 and Republic in 1992, established clearly in section 44 the clear line of demarcation of the Prime Minister’s and the exercise of President’s functions. It is clear in section 64 that no President of the Republic can act without the advice of the Cabinet or, for that purpose, to hon. A. Duval, or of a Minister acting under the general authority of

126 the Cabinet. And there is no one more important in the Cabinet than the Prime Minister, himself. When Mauritius became a Republic, various amendments were brought to various pieces of legislation in Mauritius in 1991. The Commissions of Inquiry Act 1944 was one of these legislations. There were 10 amendments brought to the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1944 to replace wherever it appears the term “Governor-General” with “President”. Thus, the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1944 starts with the section 1(2) where it says: the President may issue a commission (…) into any matter relating to the public service (...) etc. The ‘President’, here, in this section, has only replaced ‘Governor-General’. This was the amendment brought in 1991 just a few months before Mauritius became a Republic in 1992. Thus, when reading the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1944, separately as rightly stated by my colleagues, from section 64 of the Constitution, one can come to the erroneous conclusion that the President of the Republic can appoint a Commission of Inquiry. This was the erroneous reading which brought the constitutional crisis between the previous Prime Minister and the then President of the Republic. And this is why I do not understand the reasoning of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Where was he in 2018 when a General Notice was published; General Notice 803 in the Government Gazette which instituted a Commission of Inquiry for the purported appointment of a Commission of Inquiry by Mrs Ameenah Gurib-Fakim, former President of the Republic or about 16 March 2018, more precisely, to inquire on the circumstances relating to the non- compliance with the constitutional and legal provisions of the established administrative procedure applicable to the appointment of the above Commission of Inquiry? Where was the Leader of the Opposition? I do not know! Was he part of this decision to establish this Commission of Inquiry where one of the terms of reference was precisely to inquire whether the power of the Cabinet and any person acting on behalf of the Cabinet? So, the present Bill, now in the spirit of the Constitution, clarifies the legal framework to leave no ambiguities, no legal, no erroneous interpretation. It reestablishes in the law, clearly the constitutional principle that the institution of a Commission of Inquiry is the prerogative of the Executive, the Cabinet or a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet. The Bill, now in the spirit of the Constitution, confers clearly this power to the Prime Minister who is after all, the Chief of the Cabinet – the Prime Minister and Leader of the House. The Bill leaves no ambiguity, no room as to who has the power to nominate a

127 Commission of Inquiry. It spares us from the institutional crisis which bears the imprint of the previous regime. The previous regime did not dare draw the lessons of the previous dangerous constitutional crisis between the previous Prime Minister and the former President of the Republic. We dare. We are bringing the necessary amendments with the new Public Inquiries Bill. Where they failed, we act. An hon. Member: Yes!

Madam Speaker, when I heard hon. Duval say that we must amend the 80- year-old legislation – I am new to this Assembly but I cannot understand the reasoning of such a proposal. For me, it is like a colonially tainted proposal. To amend a piece of legislation dating back to 80 years and during this period, we had independence; during this period, we had the republic, we had evolution, I just cannot understand how these kinds of ideas still persist after independence and after the advent of the republic in our country. Madam Speaker, in addition to addressing the legal issues, we mentioned the legal imbroglio. The new Public Inquiries Bill will be bringing at least four – I would just mention it, my colleagues mentioned it, just for the record – major qualitative leap forward. The Bill opens the door for public access and scrutiny to proceedings of Board of inquiry. This is clearly stated in section 13 that all reasonable steps as may be necessary should be taken to ensure that members of the public – I requote this one – so that the Chairperson can decide – this is new – to allow broadcasting of proceedings of an inquiry which may be made. And this is very important in digital time. Like we have public broadcasting of this Parliament, we can have public broadcasting of public inquiries and I think this is very novel in the piece of legislation. The second leap forward is putting the time bar for the completion of the Board of Inquiry which was mentioned by many of my colleagues and it is mentioned in two sections, in section 4 and section 6. Under section 4, the Terms of reference of the Board of Inquiry, one of the terms of reference is to set the date by which the inquiry report shall be submitted. Under section 6, it is the duty to inform the Assembly, “where the Prime Minister proposes to set up a Board of Inquiry”. The Prime Minister has to state in the terms of reference, the date by which the inquiry report shall be submitted. The third leap forward is that it is mandatory to make public the report of the Board of Inquiry. This is mentioned in section 21 – Laying of inquiry report before Assembly and it is

128 mentioned in section 22 – Publication of inquiry report in Gazette. These two new clauses in the new Bill are very important. The fourth leap forward is a critical clause to protect the rights of persons likely to be prejudicially affected. This is mentioned in section 18 of the Bill. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I would say that we live in 2025, that this Bill brings a wind of change in the country, like we have been doing for the last five months. And in the future, we do believe that debates should be held in the National Assembly, in the country on the possibility to be Members of the National Assembly, the power to instigate commission of inquiries and their terms of reference, by way of Motion or otherwise as practiced in various democracies. In the meantime, I must say that Rezistans et Alternativ is proud to be part of the political forces bringing in this new law of public interest. As part of the Alliance du Changement and as a party strongly committed to public transparency, truth and evidence- based political decision, we support this Bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Yes, hon. Prime Minister! (7.05 p.m.)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The current Commissions of Inquiry Act, as many orators have said, hon. Members have said, dates back to 1944. I hardly can understand how hon. A. Duval says we should keep that Act and amend it. Its structure, its functioning are completely outdated and no longer provide an adequate response to the variable complexity of the matters that may in a modern society require the scrutiny of a statutory inquiry. First of all, Madam Speaker, let us look at what, recently, the commissions of inquiries, under the previous regime, have come out with. When the former Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr Lam Shang Leen, and his two members made a serious and sustained effort to reach the truth in connection with the social scourge of drug trafficking, which has increased vastly in recent years, what happened to his alarming findings and shocking conclusions? They disappeared into a void. The former government ignored most of his recommendations and it cost the taxpayers Rs12 million. Most of his recommendations were ignored.

129 Similarly, when a public inquiry was set up to examine the conduct of the former President of the Republic, – the Leader of the Opposition was talking about trying to politicise things – it subsequently appeared to have originated from an anonymous letter, concocted in the Prime Minister’s Office by a Special Adviser of the then Prime Minister, who then promised to lay the letter before this House for scrutiny. It was predictably unfulfilled. That promise was never kept. No letter was ever deponed here, in the Assembly. It cost the taxpayers Rs10.5 million. When the Commission of Inquiry on Horse Racing was set up in 2014, its preliminary report mysteriously disappeared after the general elections of December 2014. The interim report was, I think, deponed and tabled only in 2017 by the then government. Not by the then government; it was tabled by the then Leader of Opposition, the hon. Member’s father, Mr Xavier-Luc Duval. He was the one who tabled it. It was never tabled in front of the House. The Commission’s findings and conclusions were submitted by the then President of the Republic, Mr Kailash Purryag, to the then Prime Minister in March 2015. I remember I had purposely rung the then President to ask him to make sure that the then Prime Minister gets the report because it was an important report. It was about what was happening at the Mauritius Turf Club. The President told me that he has asked his rider to go and leave the report at the PMO. A question was put to the then Prime Minister in Parliament. Without flinching an eye, he said that he had never received the report. It disappeared completely! An hon. Member: As usual! Aussi simple que ça !

When international arbitrators awarded billions of rupees in damages against the reckless and irresponsible political scorched-earth policy of the previous government in the Betamax case, dismissing the previous government’s case – the arbitration for that politically motivated abuse and as lacking any shred of evidence; when the Privy Council dismissed with disdain the government’s legal challenge to the award, and the independent DPP rejected the trumped-up Police investigation for the bogus smokescreen it always was, what did the previous government do? Precisely what the Leader of the Opposition, who was a member of the then government, if I remember, is complaining now! He now seems to be worried about the exact figures. But this is what happened under the previous government!

130 Let me give you a concrete example of how the previous government weaponised commissions of inquiries to settle political scores. The House may recall – we spoke about him this morning – how the now notorious Sattar Hajee Abdoula, with the connivence of the former Prime Minister, together, tried to convince Mr Dawood Rawat to get rid of the BAI Group of companies for the symbolic sum of Rs1, with the promise that if he did this, the government will not harm him or his daughters. This is what was done! Mr Rawat, to his credit, categorically rejected this poisonous offer. Yet, – I cannot remember. I think hon. Uteem mentioned it – the very same Sattar Hajee Abdoula was appointed as an Assessor of the Commission of Inquiry on the Disposal of Shares of the BAI Company Ltd, and also, with the related Britam Holdings Ltd in Kenya. If this was not a direct conflict of interest, then what was it? What was the guarantee under the previous Commission of Inquiry? What was happening then? This is exactly what we want to prevent actually. It is worth pointing out that one of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, chaired by former Judge Bhushan Domah, was that criminal actions should be initiated against former Minister Roshi Bhadain for his malevolent acts in the sale of the shares of Britam Holdings Ltd of Kenya. This is what Judge Domah said. And what did Mr Bhadain do? He swore an affidavit where he pointed out that one of the Assessors, Mr Sattar Hajee Abdoula, is a bosom friend of the former Prime Minister and, therefore, he is judge and party in this case. That was the end of the matter! Finished! Forget it! In the drawer! These three Commissions, Madam Speaker, cost the taxpayers a total of Rs32.7 million with no result to show. Nobody in the House had any idea what the Commission of Inquiry said or did. These Commissions of Inquiry were set up for the wrong reasons. Their findings, conclusions and recommendations were completely ignored, left to sleep in the yellowing pages of newspapers and the dusty drawers of the administrative inertia! We have seen such patterns for the last lost, wasted decade. Inquiries have come and gone. They might as well have never happened. Let us come to the inquiry on Betamax which, we have been told, was stopped on purpose by the same Mr Bhadain. This is what he has been campaigning about. Let us look at the facts. The case went for arbitration in Singapore, presided by a UK former judge with high reputation – high reputation. The Arbitrator stated, after having examined everything,

131 that the allegations of fraud were completely unsubstantiated. There was no proof of any impropriety. If you look at the law, arbitration should have been the end of the matter. But no! The government then decided that the findings of the arbitration should be relooked at by the Supreme Court as it was against public policy. In spite of the fact, as I said, the International Arbitration Act says that an award should be final and the courts should not readily intervene. However, the Supreme Court intervened and cancelled the arbitration award. Betamax went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to appeal. Look at what the Privy Council said. The Privy Council said that the Supreme Court of Mauritius was not entitled to review the Arbitrator’s decision. The contract was not illegal. There was no impropriety. It added that the Supreme Court cannot, under the guise of public policy, reopen issues that were settled. That is what the Privy Council said! Une claque magistrale à notre Cour suprême ! That is what happened. That should have been the end of the matter. But the then government wanted to initiate, after the Privy Council had pronounced itself, a Commission of Inquiry as a fig leaf, I suppose, to disguise the slap they had just received after a final judgment of the Privy Council. I think hon. Minister Uteem rightly said it: that action is a contempt of court. Du jamais vu! Do you know how many years after they started a Commission of Inquiry? It is practically after 15 years that a Commission of Inquiry started! It was a sustained dishonest campaign. A conspiracy at the highest level to manufacture evidence, especially against me, but also against Minister Bachoo. This was the purpose! Hon. A. Duval should have looked at what his own father said at the Commission of Inquiry. I suppose you did not look!

I was there!

You were there? Then, you did not hear anything! You were there for nothing because you should have seen what he has said! An hon. Member: Linn gagn amnesia!

Li ti dan happy hour!

132

Madam Speaker, they set up a public inquiry to cover the embarrassment after la claque qu’ils ont reçue. There was never the slightest basis for such an inquiry after the Privy Council has pronounced itself. It was, in fact, meant to find ways and means to taint our reputation with invidious charges. Nothing more! In awarding over USD 100 million against the State, which we had to pay, which the taxpayers had paid, the distinguished, independent international Arbitrator scathingly dismissed the previous government’s supposed justification as lacking even the semblance of plausibility. After thoroughly reviewing all evidence the Government had put forward, they found no basis to suggest that any impropriety whatsoever had occurred. As I said, these findings of the arbitrator were supported by no less a court than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which decided that the previous government’s case to be spurious and founded on elementary misconceptions of the law. In taking its decisions against Betamax – we all know, of course, Madam Speaker, that the previous government was assisted by legal geniuses. Some of whom to this day, no doubt continue to offer their legal services, their legal wisdom at considerable cost to their unsuspecting clients. They are still taking money out of people.

Bez kas!

But no cost will be ever as great as the cost to Mauritius of their reckless, politically motivated, and foolish advice. Mr Bhadain – all he has been talking about – was instrumental in both the BAI Commission of Inquiry and also the Betamax one, and he continued to make unsubstantiated allegations during the campaign. As I say, you should have heard – if you were there, I don’t know why you didn’t hear it – what the former Deputy Prime Minister, Xavier-Luc Duval said. He said he did not agree with that decision of Cabinet. He told Cabinet that this is a wrong decision. He was there at the beginning. He knows there was no impropriety and that it was going to cost us money. He even called in the then Solicitor General, Mr Dheerendra Dabee, and asked him his opinion, and Mr Dheerendra Dabee told to him that he was completely opposed to the cancelling of that contract and that the government will have to pay heavy damages if they do that.

133 But they instituted the Commission of Inquiry 15 years later; as hon. Uteem just said, it was a contempt of court and it would have been challenged. Had there been this interference as we think there would have been, they would have been challenged in front of the Privy Council again. Mr Bhadain should be exposed, Madam Speaker, for what he is, like a vulture with a mixture of venom and ignorance - ignorance! What he has been doing is reprehensible, beyond contempt. This is what SSR used to call a flash in the pan. He has been reduced to a political past, political clown I should say. Ready to do anything, to cling to even concrete for his survival. I know, Madam Speaker, you might say he is not in the House, but it is precisely because of this that I am dragging him here, to expose him. What a loud mouth demagogue he has been; dangerous demagogue! This is the background of the Betamax case. The Mauritius public is now asked to support many more millions of rupees to be expended on a pointless public inquiry purely for political ends and because the previous government could not accept the responsibility of its own flagrant abuses. It has been proved; two judicial tribunals, including the highest in the Commonwealth have denounced it. We know that the previous government didn’t care about money; we heard this morning. They have brought the economy of our country to its knees. The House, Madam Speaker, has a duty to put an end to this long legacy of waste, self- enrichment and abuse. If they were left to continue, it would cost again the hard-pressed taxpayer even more millions. This is what would have been the result. We all too plainly know the cynical exploitation and abuse of the State’s resources to which the government unhesitatingly resorted to whenever its political and personal interests required. When this ‘Missie Moustass’ leaks exposed their shame in all its nakedness for all the world to see, placing on show the toady, corrupt and abusive nature of this criminal gang which had seized and maintained control of the country by fraud and by lies, what was their first response? Yes, Madam Speaker, they announced a public inquiry into the leaks. Never! It never happened! There was never a public inquiry; it was never even started. It was just a show because the elections were there, people were revolting. So, they said there would be an inquiry, but no inquiry was ever done! But the Mauritian people put this, what I could call a dying serpent out of its misery, whose coils had wrapped themselves around the country and at least, we saved the country’s public purse. And what has been the cost of all these? Tens of millions of rupees, as I said

134 earlier, by the government on sterile exercises of political self-justification, not counting the time. We don’t put the time of what the civil servants had put in, which properly accounted for even more tens of millions of rupees. Yet, not a single recommendation has been adopted; not a line of any of the reports debated in this Chamber – nobody knows what is in the Commission of Inquiry. No official government response. That shows, Madam Speaker, that in the hands of the previous government, there were no more than colourable devices again. They were never intended for the purposes for which public inquiries are supposed to exist: to cast light on social ills or public mischiefs, to establish the truth of tragic events, to apportion responsibility and to lead to the diagnosis and remedy the causes. First, then, we will put an end to that shameful chapter and abusive inquiries of the previous government. Secondly, we will ensure that the conclusions and recommendations of the inquiry will not simply be ignored by future governments. They will have to be debated in this Chamber; this never happened before. The government will have to publish a formal response, recommendation by recommendation to a report. Now, I heard hon. Duval; it’s a misconception, complete misconception of the Constitution, of our system of government. We have a Cabinet system of government here, not a presidential system. The President has to act on the advice of Cabinet and as I think Minister Subron just said: who is the Head of the Cabinet? The Prime Minister, perhaps you don’t know, meets the President every Thursday morning. It’s in the Constitution. I have to keep the President informed. I meet him every Thursday morning. He is kept informed. When we propose a Bill, he sees the Bill. If he has anything to say, he says it. This is how the Cabinet system of Government works.

Li pa kone li!

The determination of this Government is to widen, to deepen and strengthen our democracy. In fact - I don’t know where he is getting his quotations -, in Canada and in the UK, this is the system. The UK has the same system, go and look; the same system that we are putting here. The Public Inquiries Bill before the House provides for a legally robust framework in the conduct of public inquiries into matters of significant public importance. It provides for the setting up of a Board of Inquiry with much wider powers than existed before. Events having caused public concerns or capable of causing public concerns;

135 that also has to be taken in account as well as where there is a public concern that a particular event may have happened. Sometimes, it is like this. It will now fall under the scope of that new Board of Inquiry. The Bill creates for more specific and detailed terms of reference. Additionally, and perhaps hon. A. Duval doesn’t know how we decide the terms of reference. It is in Cabinet that we decide the terms of reference. But that’s how it is.

Where is the …

The Prime Minister is in the Cabinet, if you don’t know. He heads the Cabinet. This is how I just said it is done.

(Interruptions)

Li krwar lot kabine la sa!

You are thinking of the ‘Kitchen Cabinet’, I think. That’s what you are referring to. It’s not the ‘Kitchen Cabinet’ here. It’s the real Cabinet. It will now be possible for the Prime Minister to consult the proposed Chairperson of the Board before setting up the terms of reference instead of just putting terms of reference and you see the Chairperson say: ‘I don’t like his; I don’t like that’. At least, we have consultations, and he will be able to respond to these terms of reference. Furthermore, there shall be a statutory duty to inform the National Assembly. This is not the case with the actual Commissions of Inquiry Act. We will have to inform. When a Board of Inquiry has been or will be set up, the terms of reference will be seen in the National Assembly. You will see who shall be appointed as Chairperson and also whether the Prime Minister has appointed or proposes to appoint any other member. Additionally, and most importantly, in order to avoid the delays, we have seen in the past with former Commissions of Inquiry, there will now be a statutory duty to state the date by which the inquiry report must be submitted to the National Assembly. It cannot go on for years and years. That Commission of Inquiry on Betamax was 15 years ago - they were calling us to say. Even your father told the judge, ‘Madam it’s 15 years ago! How to you expect me to remember everything? It’s impossible.’

136 This will not be the case now. There will be a statutory duty to state the date by which the inquiry report will have to be submitted. Furthermore, in a spirit of transparency, while the Commissions of Inquiry Act provides an option as to whether the inquiry shall or shall not be held in public, this one makes statutory provision for the Board of Inquiry to be held in public, unless for some reasons, security reasons perhaps, the Board decides otherwise. The new Bill also makes provision for members of the public to be able to obtain or view a record of the evidence given and the documents produced or provided during the proceedings of the Board of Inquiry. Your father complained and I also wanted to. I wanted to know what other people have said so that I can rebut the arguments. They said, “No! No! You can’t have it.” At the end, they told me that I could go and look at it - all sorts of boxes of documents -, and that I had to do it within three days. Not possible! What’s the point of hiding it? We have seen in the past how many people have had their reputation damaged by their names being mentioned in the reports of the Commissions of Inquiry. They had to go for judicial review after that, when they could have done it there and then. We have seen how there had been no explanations sought from these persons, who then had to go to the Supreme Court for a judicial review. I had to do it myself, and I won; on top of that, I won. Out of the five complaints I made, I won four. On the fifth one, they said it was a balance, maybe yes or maybe no. In a spirit of fairness, the Public Inquiries Bill makes provision for any person, who, in his/her opinion, their reputation is likely to be affected by public inquiry, they can be heard, they can be given evidence, they can produce documents, and they can see what has been said against them. According to the Bill – “The Prime Minister shall, not later than 30 days after receipt of the inquiry report under section 20, lay a copy of the inquiry report before the Assembly, [on the Table of the National Assembly].” In words, it will not disappear in a drawer. You will have the chance to look at it. Furthermore, the Board of Inquiry shall, not later than 30 days after the submission of the report to the Prime Minister, publish it in the Government Gazette so that everybody can look at it.

137 And there will be a new statutory duty on the government to respond to the report; not just lay it on the Table. You can debate on it. But this does not mean that the government will be obliged to accept each and every one of the conclusions. It will rather mean that the public will be able to see what the arguments were, what the government proposes to do about whatever mischief identified by the inquiry. These measures will also ensure that the work of the Board will be conducted in a transparent manner and made accessible to the public at large. Hon. Uteem rightly pointed out about this drug baron or drug peddler who would say that he knows who, in the government, has been financing, taking money from the drug barons for the elections. This has been thrown under the carpet. To conclude, Madam Speaker, let me reaffirm that the Government, today, is honouring its commitment to provide clear parameters for the conduct of public inquiries, including, as I said, a strict time frame for such inquiries. We are repealing the Commissions of Inquiry Act and replacing it by a modern, transparent and comprehensive legislation. The Government is taking steps to ensure that the purposes of the public inquiry are genuinely fulfilled and not abused like it has been done in the past; and the reports are not simply ignored. In fact, the reports were never known. Here, you will get a chance to see how much it has cost. And you can see the fairness, the independence and accountability of the whole process of this public inquiry, with the rights of everyone who might be affected by the findings of an inquiry report. They have the right to come and depone. I have repeatedly said, Madam Speaker, that one of the imperative missions of this Government is to restore integrity, pride and independence to the constitutional, democratic and civic institutions in which the freedom and strength of any nation principally resides. The Bill contributes to that cause. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Yes, hon. Ag. Attorney General! (7.32 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, I would like to, first and foremost, thank all Members who have spoken. I have listened very carefully to all the speeches and more so, to that of the intervention of hon. Prime Minister just before me.

138 I would like to also thank, right away; not at the end of my intervention, the officers of the office of the Attorney General, the Attorney General himself who has put on a lot of effort in the work that he has produced; we are all very thankful to him and I wish him a quick recovery. However, I would like to add, I do not think I had to but then I think sometimes, it is necessary to underline important events. I mean when I based myself on the intervention of the hon. Leader of the Opposition and hon. Adrien Duval, it is necessary for me to refer to the arbitral award, the final award in Singapore of the arbitration matter, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre between Betamax and the State Trading Corporation. Let me say here that this is dated 05 June 2017 and people will start to understand that when I read that particular document, the Table of Contents, on Issue 4, it is written at page 45, the contract/agreement that Betamax had including the arbitration agreement, illegal – there was a question that the arbitrators had to answer – “Is it illegal and unenforceable?’’ This is one of them main issues that they had to cover. I say that today because hon. A. Duval said that there are issues that were not covered. Let us say that he is wrong there, I say that respectfully. It was covered. I took it upon myself, not to just come up with statements but I went through the award to make sure that what I am saying, I have verified it, counter- checked it and I am therefore convinced that what hon. A. Duval is saying is not right. So, let me also say that maybe if he has missed that part, I am sure he has also missed the other part. And, I say it sans hesitation – one of the lawyers who participated in this whole scandalous process, Ravindra Chetty, Senior Counsel, was the one, strangely enough, representing some element of the ‘Kitchen’ in those days. Anyway, kulchoul, bartan we call it. You know? Bartan! So, then when I read this particular Issue at page 46, is it illegal and I will read parts of what the arbitrator said, Paragraph 170 – “The Tribunal has found that STC has failed to discharge its burden of proving that the agreement was agreed as part of a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act under either interpretation. The Tribunal has found that the PPA was not breached …” I can go on and I will, at Paragraph 182 –

139 “This Tribunal rejects the submissions of the STC. Specifically, the Tribunal does not find Mr Bhunjun give evidence that was untrue in his first statement, or at all …” 184. This explanation is plausible and entirely consistent with Mr Bhunjun’s first witness statement, having found that Mr Bhunjun was not untruthful as alleged by the STC… ” Let’s pause, ‘as alleged by the STC’, allegedly Mr Bhunjun was lying only to satisfy the head cooks of that ‘Kitchen’. “That allegation cannot provide a basis for the tribunal to draw the inference alleged.” Madam Speaker, do you know upon what the STC caused losses to the coffers of this country, taxpayers’ money to be paid? On inferences to satisfy the head cooks of the day!

Cinq milliards! An hon. Member: Six milliards!

You know what is shocking? The hon. Prime Minister referred to one of the sous-fifre who was helping to cook away – hon. Bhadain, former Minister. He was part and parcel of this whole mess. So, it is when he was part of parcel of this whole mess, having brought an end to the agreement that it caused losses to the country. It caused losses in billions to the country. Billions! We have a representative, the hon. Member of the PMSD, holding on to the reminiscence of the colonial era. The representative in Parliament and National Assembly in 2025 is still holding on to the colonial law of 1944!

(Interruptions)

At least, they are consistent!

(Interruptions)

But then, what about the hon. Member of the MSM? They are holding on to this law – I am sure they do not know why – only because they want to satisfy the ego of the head cook! That is all.

Ex-head cook!

No! I am sure he is still cooking away!

140

Nepli ena…

Nepli ena bartann mem!

Ingredian inn fini!

Look at paragraph 195, I quote – “Again, STC invites the Tribunal to infer, on the basis that the Government had therefore ultimately agreed to a commitment that ran counter to its earlier stipulations, that the CoA was an illegitimate transaction. However, it is more plausible that this change was simply the product of the parties’ protracted commercial negotiations. The Tribunal also rejects these submissions.” Under the chapter of the SLO’s advice, paragraph 200 – “The Tribunal therefore finds that these allegations are also incapable of grounding an inference that there was a criminal conspiracy between Mr Bhunjun and members of the then Government.” So, when I read paragraph 207 – “In any event, these difficulties could not support an inference of criminal conspiracy.” For Members out here to listen and members of the public to hear : STC, fomenté par le gouvernement du jour, poussé par le leader du Reform Party qui était lui-même chef de la cuisine, I read paragraph 211(d) – “(d) STC led no evidence from any person who could have given direct evidence of a conspiracy.” Therefore, based upon what hon. Members of this Opposition are telling us, let us hold on to the laws of the colonial days? Let us not change the law! Let us simply amend it! Amend what? Amend this way of trying to run the affairs of the country. Based on simple inferences, allegations that could not even be substantiated, Madam Speaker, the tax payers ont dû payer plus de R 6 milliards ! Qui alors va rembourser cela aux tax payers ? Today, we are in difficulty; and they dare come and tell us we should pay out and keep our promises? Today, we are having these difficulties because of such mess that has driven this country to the ground! Paragraph 211(e), I quote –

141 (e) “On a related point, in its closing submissions, STC listed a number of people who, it submits, have been the subject of criminal, or provisional criminal, charges "for their roles in the allocation and eventual signing of the CoA". STC did not, however, offer any specific allegations as to what those roles might have been, or when and how the conspiracy was alleged to have been entered into.’’ So, back in the day, you did not manage to have any witness, any evidence and no substantiated allegations. So should the MSM be condemned for this disaster! Oh, no! They stand here, in the decorum of the National Assembly, saying: ‘Madam Speaker, let us not change the law. Let us leave it the same.’ To answer hon. A. Duval, who allegedly thinks that the hon. Prime Minister will decide one day, when he wakes up, ‘I want an inquiry.’ This is not how it works! I am sorry!

Nothing stops him to!

Read Section 61 of the Constitution! The hon. Prime Minister is right – I understand. You know, obviously, when you rub shoulders with people who behave in such a manner, …

(Interruptions)

Kan ou frekant lisien, ou gagn piss. You know?

(Interruptions)

Let me put it in English. When you go close to the dogs which have fleas, you start itching! This is what happens!

Karapat!

But what I humbly suggest hon. A. Duval to do before rubbing shoulders with dogs infested with fleas is to take some sort of medication to get rid of the fleas! Do you know what is the best medication? The Constitution of Mauritius! You know what the Constitution says? There is a chapter called Cabinet if the young Member is not aware. Section 61(2) – “The functions of the Cabinet shall be to advise the President in the government of Mauritius and (…)”

(Interruptions)

142 You know, do not stop there! You are already drawing conclusions. Hold on! Hold your horses! Get away from the dog with fleas! Hold on! “(…) the Cabinet shall be collectively responsible to the Assembly for any advice given to the President by or under the general authority of the Cabinet and for all things done by or under the authority of any Minister in execution of his office.” So, let us not forget whatever the hon. Prime Minister will be lawfully entitled to do, the Cabinet will be collectively responsible for it. Because the Constitution says he is doing so under the authority of his power. This is how Cabinet works!

(Interruptions)

…site visit pou li dan Cabinet !

(Interruptions)

Back in the day, there was someone, there was a ‘so-called Prime Minister’ who did not believe in this type of democracy.

(Interruptions)

I know he is very ill at ease right now sitting next to the MSM! I know! When I look at some of his questions, when I try to understand how he tries to demarcate himself…

(Interruptions)

Do not be afraid. Embrace the truth! This is what I say. We cannot keep on sticking to the old days of 1944. Let us evolve! Young man, let us move forward!

(Interruptions)

Sanzman!

(Interruptions)

We have promised change; this is change, Madam Speaker! Change there is! We have to adopt our changes. What he should do is to at least congratulate us. He tried to do it timidly, but please, Section 61 explains it all! I shall say no more. Let me say that, once again, I commend the Bill to the House. An hon. Member: Bravo! Question put and agreed to.

143 Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) The Public Inquiries Bill (No. V of 2025) was considered and agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with the Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Public Inquiries Bill (No. V of 2025) was read a third time and passed.

Hon. Prime Minister adjournment. ADJOURNMENT

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that this Assembly do now adjourn to Tuesday 13 May 2025 at 11.30 a.m. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

The House stands adjourned. We have adjournment matters. Yes hon. François! MATTERS RAISED (7.50 p.m.) RODRIGUES – SHIPPING – DEFECTIVE CONTAINERS Mr F. François (Second Member for Rodrigues): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My request is addressed to the hon. Minister responsible for shipping. It is about the many defective containers sealed with tape that are used to transport products to Rodrigues such as animal feed, rice, flour and other commodities. I am informed that importers consignment deliveries are regularly damaged by rain and sea water without any compensation in return causing a lot of loss to them. In that regard, may I humbly appeal to the hon. Minister to intervene with the Mauritius Shipping Corporation Ltd to see with the container service provider company for urgent remedial measures for the replacement of these old and damaged containers as we do not

144 want to see again the episode of diri rasion pouri ou manze zamino gate to land on the market in Rodrigues. Further, may I request the hon. Minister to also look into the asphalting and upgrading of part of the muddy, dusty and untarred tarmac of a new container park depot for a convenient reliable storage and handling solutions and environment at Mer Rouge. Thank you.

Yes, hon. Minister!

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am glad that my good friend hon. François gave me notice of the issue that he has raised. He can rest assured that we will press upon the Mauritius Shipping Corporation to take corrective measures to address the situation. So, he can rest assured things have been done.

Thank you, hon. Minister. Yes, hon. Beejan! (7.52 p.m.) GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS – SKILLING & RESKILLING PROGRAMMES Mr N. Beejan (Second Member for Grand Baie & Poudre D’or): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My request is addressed to the hon. Minister of Education and Human Resource, given that there is a serious skills mismatch in Mauritius, in this spirit, will the hon. Minister consider running skilling and reskilling programmes in government schools after school hours? Thank you.

Yes, hon. Minister!

Madam Speaker, I have taken good note of the hon. Member’s request and the answer is yes. The human resource department specially the HRDC is going to look into that.

Thank you. Very good news. Yes, hon. Beechook! (7.52 p.m.) SOCIAL HOUSING – INCOME THRESHOLD – INEQUALITY AMONG APPLICANTS Mr R. Beechook (Second Member for Flacq & Bon Accueil): Madam Speaker, I have a request to the hon. Minister of Housing and Lands concerning the social housing

145 income threshold which is currently of Rs40,000 for one applicant be it one single person or a family. So, it raises a question of inequality of fairness because very often I come up with two situations whereby people who had apply some 15 to 20 years before are being called for an interview today and today their income has crossed Rs40,000. Secondly, I find that the current income threshold favours single applicants more than families because someone who is single and earning Rs40,000 is not equivalent to a family whereby husband and wife are earning Rs40,000. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I believe that the issue that the hon. Member raises is a very valid point. It has already been addressed by myself with the officers of the NHDC and the NSLD who have submitted a report and analysis. It has clearly shown that there has been an increase also of income over the various increases yearly, even recently in January, and therefore, it brings them out, or slightly above, the Rs40,000 and then a lot of them are caught in the income trap. We have made representations to the Ministry of Finance and you can rest assured that we will be looking into the matter. Government will come up with a solution in the forthcoming days or weeks. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, hon. Dr. Prayag! (7.54 p.m.) SSRN HOSPITAL – UNUSED SPACE Dr. S. Prayag (First Member for Piton & Rivière du Rempart): Madam Speaker, may I request the hon. Minister of Health to do a site visit at SSRN Hospital. Behind the pharmacy, we have a huge unused space, a room which is renovated anew which can be used for a transition ward for patients being discharged from the hospital. Thank you. The Ministry of Health and Wellness (Mr. A. Bachoo): I will take note of his request and I will do the needful.

Thank you very much. I think we are done. Thank you very much everybody. At 7.55 p.m., the Assembly was, on its rising, adjourned to Tuesday 13 May 2025 at 11.30 a.m.

146 WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS MAURITIUS-RODRIGUES – AIR-CONNECTIVITY – DAILY & SUPPLEMENTARY FLIGHTS