Second Reading THE FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (NO. I OF 2025) Order for Second Reading read. (3.41 p.m.) The Attorney General (Mr G. P. C. Glover): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Financial Crimes Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. I of 2025) be read a second time. Madam Speaker, today, I rise before this august Assembly to present the Financial Crimes Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1 of 2025), a measure that is as much about legal rectification as it is about the restoration of our nation’s fundamental principles: democracy, constitutionalism, and the rule of law. This Bill is not merely a technical amendment to an errant statute. It is an unequivocal statement of the new Government, elected by the people with a mandate to restore democracy, that it will not tolerate legal aberrations that corrode the integrity of our constitutional order. What we seek to do today is re-establish the proper balance between the branches of Government, fortify the sanctity of our institutions, and reverse the legislative vandalism that was perpetrated in a manner both reckless and unconstitutional. Hon. Members will remember and recall that when the Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023 was passed last year, it was widely criticised for purporting to confer upon the FCC powers that directly violated the Constitution. Powers that encroached upon the prosecutorial powers and role that our supreme law reserves for the Director of Public Prosecutions and for the Director alone. This was no oversight, nor was it a mere error of judgment; it was a deliberate and calculated attack on the prosecutorial independence enshrined in our legal system. It was a move to open our criminal justice system to insidious political interference. Indeed, I can today inform the House that the version of that Bill that was enacted in 2023 was not the version that had been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his initial views. It was not the version that the DPP had agreed to. No, it was a version that was further tweaked and twisted and to which the learned DPP raised serious constitutional objections. Thus, Madam Speaker, the DPP himself had no choice but to seek constitutional redress before the Supreme Court, challenging this blatant encroachment upon his domain. And here, we must pause to reflect on a truth that too often is neglected these days, that is the law can only function effectively if those entrusted with its enforcement uphold their duties with integrity and independence. The Constitution provides, Madam Speaker, for several independent institutions, from the Commissioner of Police to the Public Service Commission. But how many of these actually operate independently at all times? To his credit, the learned DPP acted to defend the role attributed to him by our supreme law. And in undermining the DPP, the previous Government did not merely violate the Constitution; they committed a graver offence: they undermined the very foundation of justice. Madam Speaker, let me be absolutely clear on why this is so egregious. Our democracy is built upon the principle of separation of powers. Those who make the laws must never be the ones who administer justice. This principle is deeply ingrained in our national ethos, forged through centuries of democratic struggle to end the absolutism of despots, where rulers once held unchecked power as judge, jury, and executions. Madam Speaker, one does not need to have read Montesquieu to grasp that something would be profoundly wrong if, tomorrow, a minister were to preside over cases at the Intermediate Court or if a prime minister were to interfere in the conduct of a judicial enquiry. However, some in this country still fail to grasp the danger of placing prosecutorial powers under political control. They argue, rather simplistically, I must say: “Isn’t the DPP part of the executive in any case? What is the problem if suspected offenders are brought to justice through Government action?” they asked. “After all, independent judges and magistrates will ultimately decide the case…”. These are probably the same persons who, in recent weeks, have been demanding why has the new Government not yet arrested X and Y? Why has X or Y not been prosecuted for this or that offence? To them, I say this: this is not how our system works. If it were, and the Government had the power to direct criminal investigations and prosecutions, two grave risks would threaten our nation –  Firstly, individuals could be targeted for prosecution based on political motives. And we have all witnessed, have we not, in recent years, how opposition figures and I will not name them here, have been subjected to a barrage of provisional charges only for these to be struck down by the courts, months or years later, due to lack of evidence.  Secondly, members of the Government, or their associates, could be shielded from scrutiny and prosecution. Again, we have seen how investigations into prominent figures of the previous administration have stagnated to the point of near abandonment. Madam Speaker, as Attorney General, I do not stand before this House to engage in partisan politics, let it be very clear. But I would be derelict in my duty as the Government’s chief legal adviser if I failed to highlight these serious transgressions and to put forward how we can ensure they are never, never repeated. To avoid these two dangers I have just highlighted, it is crucial that the Government truly allows the police, the FCC and the DPP to operate independently. If you appoint the right people in the right place, give them the means and the freedom to do their job, then and only then can you expect enquiries to be fair, irrespective of who is being investigated; it is only then that you can have prosecutions based solely on legal considerations, evidence, and the public interest; it is only then that you can have the rule of law instead of the dominion of men. This, Madam Speaker, is the difference between justice and vengeance. And this is what the framers of our Constitution had in mind, Madam Speaker, and perhaps here a little history at this juncture, would not go amiss. Prior to independence, at the Mauritius Constitutional Review Conference of 1961, it was decided that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be “solely responsible, in his discretion, for the initiation, conduct, and discontinuance of prosecutions”. He would be “independent of the Attorney General”, who would remain the legal adviser of Government and a Member of Cabinet. This put an end, in fact, to the overlap that had existed until then, and which stemmed from the colonial-era office of “Procureur and Advocate General”. The post of DPP was thus formally established through the Mauritius (Constitution) Order of 1964. It’s very raison d’être, from the outset, Madam Speaker, was therefore to establish a clear and inviolable separation between two fundamental functions of the State: governing and prosecuting. That same year, Madam Speaker, Professor de Smith argued in his Constitutional Commissioner’s Report that the DPP should be given judicial security of tenure, as was already the case in other jurisdictions. In 1965, at the Constitutional Conference at Lancaster House in London, the principle of prosecutorial independence was further reinforced, and it was decided that only a person qualified to be a Judge of the Supreme Court could act as a DPP. After independence, these provisions were retained and enshrined in section 72 of our Constitution which provides that the DPP is appointed by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, ensuring insulation from executive interference. Section 72(3) of the Constitution confers upon the DPP the power to institute, take over, and discontinue any criminal proceedings before any Court of Law. The framers of our Supreme Law added, at subsection 6 thereof, that – "In the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by this section, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority." This is why, in his plaint for constitutional relief, the learned DPP described his position as being “the apex prosecution authority”. The independence of the DPP, Madam Speaker, has been consistently upheld by our Courts. For instance, in 1994, a full Bench of the Supreme Court observed that – “A distinguishing feature of our Constitution, like that of some of the new Commonwealth countries, is the splitting of executive functions between what one might call political Executive which remains answerable to Parliament and an independent non-political Executive, in specific matters, consisting of, amongst others, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Service Commissions and the Electoral Supervisory Commission, which are not answerable to Parliament. The purpose of this device [the learned Judges continued] institutionally was to insulate certain areas in the conduct of public affairs from political responsibility and control, thus ensuring their autonomy and independence.” Similarly, our Law Reform Commission, in a 2009 report, described the importance of safeguarding “the stream of criminal justice from being polluted by the inflow of noxious political contamination” by segregating “the process of prosecution entirely from general political considerations.” And for years, statutes have respected this principle, including when the Independent Commission against Corruption was set up, allowing the DPP to remain truly the apex prosecuting body of our country. That is, until the infamous, ill-reputed Financial Crimes Commission Act of 2023. Madam Speaker, the Explanatory Memorandum of the FCC Bill of 2023, explicitly declared that the Financial Crimes Commission was to be “the apex agency in Mauritius to detect, investigate and prosecute financial crimes and any other ancillary offence connected thereto”. That Act therefore provided at its section 4(3), that – “(...) subject to this act, the Commission shall, in the discharge of its functions and exercise of its powers, not be under the direction and control of any person or authority”. A similar provision is made at section 11(3) for the role of Director-General of the Commission. Here already, we see how a law passed by a simple majority aims to displace the DPP’s constitutional prerogative under the section 72 of the Constitution. This purported apex prosecuting authorities to be, as per sections 7(3) and sections 10(1) of the Act, composed of Commissioners and a Director-General – and this is where the important bit comes in – appointed by the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister after the latter had consulted with the Leader of the Opposition. The terms and conditions of these appointments are to be determined by the Prime Minister alone. The possibility of political influence and considerations which endure during the tenure of the appointees is thus clear. The more so as the Constitution allows, at its section 113(4), for anyone appointed in such a way, to – “(...) be required to vacate their office at any time after a general election held after their appointment”. Madam Speaker, of course, a responsible and honest Government would appoint to the FCC, persons of integrity and moral independence. Of course, such a Government would not try to interfere in the work of the Commission through secret backchannels. And of course, appointees do not necessarily neglect their duties under the law to please those who put them in place but, and this is the big but, Madam Speaker, one does not build a ship for fair weather. It is the storm that must be provided for. The same goes for our institutions and our laws. Their good functioning cannot depend only on the hope that morality and duty will prevail. There must be checks and balances to prevent any temptation to slide into the arbitrary. There must be safeguards for the day when the unscrupulous try to abuse the system. Which is why, as we maintain the mode of appointment of the FCC for the time being, and I stress, for the time being only, it is critical that the DPP whose appointment is quasi-judicial, exercises scrutiny over the prosecuting function of the FCC. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, this is not what the FCC Act of 2023 catered for. As the law stands today, after its investigations, the FCC has the power to institute criminal proceedings. Section 142(1) of the Act does pay a lip service to the constitutional role of the DPP, by stating that the FCC’s ability to initiate prosecutions is without prejudice to the DPP’s powers under section 72 of the Constitution. As such, it is said the DPP can discontinue prosecution in any criminal case which the FCC has lodged. That is what was advocated by the Bill’s supporters in 2023. But My Lady, the fact of the matter – Madam Speaker, do excuse me. I must confess, I have just been appearing before the Supreme Court, so I slipped. I am very sorry, Madam Speaker.

That is alright.

But when the DPP is not put in presence of the file which led to the prosecution, how could the DPP, in fact, exercise his powers under section 72 and step in to actually stop the prosecution? It would obviously not be possible. You see, Madam Speaker, the Prevention of Corruption Act of 2002 compelled the ICAC to submit a report to the DPP after the conclusion of an investigation. Such a report had to contain all material information, statements and documents uncovered during the enquiry, as well as a description of any evidence which was still in the ICAC’s custody and it had to be accompanied by the ICAC’s recommendations. This allowed for the DPP to be properly informed of the outcome of the investigation and to be able to assess whether criminal proceedings were warranted or not. And, he had the final say on the matter. In stark contrast, Madam Speaker, there is no such provision in the FCC Act. There is no report to be sent to the DPP. He therefore cannot be in a position to appreciate whether a prosecution initiated by the FCC is justified or not. In the absence of any information on a case, how can the DPP exercise his ability to discontinue proceedings, or to step in to continue them, as the Constitution gives him the power to do? His role under the section 72 of our Supreme Law is thus severely curtailed to say the least. Now, the aberrations, Madam Speaker, do not stop here. As at today, if the FCC decides that it will not prosecute, because there no report to the DPP, the latter may never know whether proceedings ought in fact to have been initiated. In fact, none of us would know. He may not even know that an investigation has been stopped. No one would know! Not even us! Because there no obligation on the FCC to inform him. Again, the exercise of his powers under the Constitution was thus neutralised. The FCC Act does not stop here and it goes a step further in its blatant disregard for the Constitution. Its section 150, Madam Speaker, allows the Commission to compound any offence under the Act or under the Declarations of the Assets Act. That is, if an investigation has uncovered an offence, the Commission has the discretion to grant to the offender the possibility of paying a fine, of an amount not exceeding the maximum penalty. When this happens, there can be no criminal proceedings thereafter with respect to that offence. In other words, the FCC has the authority to offer to someone, against the payment of a fine, protection from prosecution, conviction before our courts and jail sentences, and it can do so whenever it wishes to. It has no obligation to communicate on such a decision. That is so, so wrong! It is true that compounding does exist under a number of our statutes, mainly for offences related to banking, fiscal and financial offences. But in all of these cases, there is an obligation on the compounding authority, MRA or the like, to first obtain the DPP’s prior authorisation. The latter can decide that compounding will not do, and criminal proceedings should be initiated instead. The DPP has no such power when it comes to compounding under the FCC Act. What is more, he is deprived of his ability to initiate proceedings of his own against the offender, as section 150 of the FCC Act prevents any case from being brought against a person who has benefitted from compounding by the FCC. Once again, the Director of Public Prosecutions is robbed - and there is no other word, is robbed - of his prerogatives under section 72 of the Constitution. Madam Speaker, this is the situation which this Bill addresses. The different clauses of our Bill aim to restore the DPP as the apex prosecution authority in our land, including for cases that fall within the FCC Act. Accordingly, clause 5 of the Bill provides amendments to the Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023 so that no prosecution for an offence under that Act or the Declaration of Assets Act shall be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Financial Crimes Commission will therefore have no discretion in instituting or discontinuing criminal proceedings under those enactments. In addition, further related amendments are being brought to the Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023 to provide that – (a) where the Financial Crimes Commission determines that an investigation should be discontinued, it shall - and there is an obligation there - send a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions setting out its reasons; (b) in another case, if the Director of Public Prosecution does not advise prosecution or any action, he may also require the Financial Crimes Commission to conduct such further inquiries as he considers fit to advise; (c) any offence to be compounded under either the Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023 and the Declaration of Assets Act must henceforth be with his consent and approval. Madam Speaker, there is also a series of consequential amendments to other statutes, in order to erase the act of legislative vandalism that has been made against our constitutional order. Clause 2 of the Bill provides for amendments to be brought to the Courts Act with a view to empowering the Director of Public Prosecutions to be the sole authority to determine whether an information relating to a financial crime shall be laid before the Financial Crimes Division of the Intermediate Court or the Financial Crimes Division of the Supreme Court. Clause 3 of the Bill, Madam Speaker, provides amendments to be brought to the Criminal Appeal Act to restore the right only to the Director of Public Prosecutions to make an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against a final decision of the Supreme Court with regard to any offence under the Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023 and the Declaration of Assets Act. The Financial Crimes Commission was given a similar right of appeal to the Supreme Court under the District and Intermediate Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act against a final decision of the District Court or the Intermediate Court with regard to any offence under the Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023 or the Declaration of Assets Act. Clause 4 of the Bill, Madam Speaker, therefore provides for amendments to be brought to the District and Intermediate Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act to restore that right of appeal only to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Madam Speaker, the FCC Act 2023, a law passed by a simple majority, cannot trump - no pun intended - the provisions of our Constitution. It cannot be allowed to curtail the prerogatives of the DPP under section 72 of our supreme law. And it most certainly cannot contravene the principles of democracy enshrined in its Section 1. The passage of this Bill today is not simply a legislative correction; it is a moral obligation. It is a declaration that our institutions are not bargaining chips in political games, that our Constitution is not a plaything to be contorted at will. It is a message to our citizens that they can once again believe in the fairness of our laws and the impartiality of our justice system. Madam Speaker, through this Bill, we do not merely amend a law – we seek to restore justice, reaffirm democracy, and recommit ourselves to the ideals that make the Republic of Mauritius a sovereign and democratic State. With these words, Madam Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House. Dr. Boolell rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

So, now I will call on the hon. Leader of the Opposition! (4.05 p.m.) The Leader of the Opposition (Mr G. Lesjongard) : Merci, Madame la présidente, de me donner l’occasion d’intervenir, cet après-midi, sur ce projet de loi, c’est-à-dire, la Financial Crimes Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 01 of 2025). Madame la présidente, c’est un projet de loi, selon l’Explanatory Memorandum, qui propose des amendements afin de donner le pouvoir au directeur des poursuites publiques d’entamer des poursuites ou de ne pas donner suite à des enquêtes effectuées par la Financial Crimes Commission. Madame la présidente, l’ancien gouvernement avait avec raison mis en place la Financial Crimes Commission afin de créer une autorité de régulation indépendante pour la mise en œuvre des mesures strictes de lutte contre, premièrement, le blanchiment d’argent et le financement du terrorisme. Et cette commission, Madame la présidente, avait permis à l’île Maurice de faire face à ces défis spécifiques dont elle a été confrontée en tant que centre financier international. La mise en place de cette commission souligne l’importance de la coopération et de la collaboration internationale dans la lutte contre les crimes financiers transnationaux. À l’époque de la création de la FCC s’inscrivait également dans le droit-fil des engagements que nous avions pris avec le Groupe d’action financière (GAFI) selon lesquels Maurice va continuer à se doter d’institutions fortes pour mener une lutte sans relâche, Madame la présidente, contre toute forme de transactions illicites qui transitaient par notre centre financier. Alors, l’objectif de l’ancien gouvernement avec l’introduction de cette loi était en finalité, Madame la présidente, d’améliorer la réputation de notre île comme une juridiction propre et transparente…

(Interruptions)

Met impe zorey ici!

Et aujourd’hui, Madame la présidente, le présent gouvernement propose des amendements pour redonner le pouvoir au Directeur des poursuites publiques d’entamer des poursuites après les enquêtes de la Financial Crimes Commission. La question qu’on est en droit de se poser cet après-midi, Madame la présidente est : est-ce que ces amendements apporteront des meilleures retombées dans les enquêtes contre les crimes financiers ou est-ce que cela ne va pas retarder les poursuites ? Le temps nous le dira, Madame la présidente. Je note d’abord, Madame la présidente, que ces amendements visent uniquement à restaurer les droits de poursuite au Directeur des poursuites publiques. Alors je suis en droit, Madame la présidente, de présumer donc que le gouvernement considère que le reste du Financial Crimes Commission Act est correcte et représente une amélioration sur la précédente loi qui était la POCA et qui était introduite par le gouvernement MSM/MMM en 2002. Madame la présidente, je pense qu’il est de mon devoir de rappeler à cette Chambre brièvement certaines grandes avancées sous le Financial Crimes Commission Act. À commencer par l’introduction d’une nouvelle définition de ‘property’ qui n’a jamais existé dans aucune loi avant, et ‘property’ a maintenant, Madame la présidente, une définition plus large qui inclut ‘any right or interest in the property’. Donc, même si une personne n’est pas le propriétaire official of the property, un intérêt prouvé dans ce property, qui est lié aux crimes suffirait, Madame la présidente. Il y a aussi cette notion de compensation order. Une personne contre qui un confiscation order ou un attachement order a été injustement émis peut désormais demander a compensation order en cour. Il y a aussi, Madame la présidente, l’introduction de corruption in private entities…

On a point of order, Madam Speaker!

Yes, one moment!

My point of order is as follows: the hon. Leader of the Opposition should stick to the subject matter of the debate. It should not be an opportunity for him to revisit the bill, the debate that took place in 2023, and this is precisely what he is doing; saying there was this, there was that, and there was something else. We are here to stick within the parameters of the Bill and this is what the Attorney General did.

This is what I said this afternoon.

Yes, so let us be relevant.

Please try and follow.

Yes, I am trying to do that, Madam Speaker, but I am not being irrelevant. We are amending the Financial Crimes Commission Act although it is being referred to some specifics, the Attorney General himself said that we will come with further legislations.

Wait! Wait!

No, but then you will…

(Interruptions)

Let me… Everybody is the Speaker today! Then you will intervene when he comes. It is true that today, c’est très bref en fait, c’est très clair et très net. Donc, venez directement sur l’amendement lui-même et non pas sur la loi telle que c’était et qui va peut-être être amendée plus tard. Essayez d’être plus direct, on va dire.

I shall try, Madam Speaker, and I will be brief also. Let me get back to my speech because I mentioned some of the specific clauses related to the Financial Crimes Commission Act which today allow us to be more prudent in what we are doing. Madame la présidente, …

Excusez-moi, monsieur le leader de l’opposition, le débat, si j’ai bien compris, en plus en tant qu'ancien Attorney General, je devrais le dire, le débat est sur la fonction du DPP qui est restaurée. C’est là-dessus qu’il faut parler. Vous pouvez ne pas être d’accord, bien sûr, et non pas sur le projet de loi dans son ensemble.

Vous êtes d’accord, c’est bon. An hon. Member : Tout à fait ! An hon. Member : Vous êtes d’accord.

Alors, permettez-moi, comme vous le dites, Madame la présidente, d’aborder la pomme de discorde de ces débats.

Voilà !

Mais cela concerne les pouvoirs du Directeur des poursuites publiques. Alors permettez-moi de prendre comme référence ce qu’avait dit l’ancien Premier ministre lors des débats sur le Financial Crimes Commission Act en 2023 concernant les pouvoirs…

Voilà!

... du Directeur des poursuites publiques. And I quote – “It is to be noted that the constitutional powers of the DPP are not being affected at all. The DPP will retain his powers under section 72(3) (b) and (c) of the Constitution and can, therefore, take over and continue or discontinue, at any stage, any such criminal proceedings instituted by the FCC. Where he decides to discontinue any such proceedings, he may give reasons as he may deem fit for such discontinuance. However, an aggrieved party may apply to the Supreme Court for a Judicial Review of his decision.”

60-0!

Et je me réfère à ce que l’honorable qui avait pris un point of order tout à l’heure-là, l’honorable Shakeel Mohamed, avait dit et réagit à cette partie du discours de l’ancien Premier ministre, and I quote – “(…) I agree with the hon. Prime Minister that the DPP retains the right to discontinue proceedings. I totally agree with section 72(3) (b) and (c).” Et je cite – “Je n’ai pas de problème avec.”

Avec la constitution, oui !

Je voudrais aussi, Madame la présidente, revenir sur un extrait du discours parce que moi aussi j’étais intervenu ce jour-là, d’un autre intervenant lors des débats de 2023 et en particulier, l’ancien Premier ministre adjoint Ivan Collendavelloo qui évoquait la Prosecution Commission Bill et avait dit ceci, je cite – « [Le DPP] n’est pas exempté d’erreurs. Il n’est pas above the law. » Naturellement, je ne remets pas en question l’intégrité de l’actuel Directeur des poursuites publiques, loin de là, Madame la présidente. Madame la présidente, après avoir dit ce que j’ai dit, et en restant toujours dans le droit fil de ce projet de loi, je vais conclure, Madame la présidente, avec un message suivant pour le gouvernement : vous avez, certes comme l’honorable Paul Bérenger l’a dit tout à l’heure- là, vous avez été élu avec une majorité absolue et c’est très bien mais un peu…

Évidemment ! Il n ’y a pas de quoi !

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Merci Jésus!

(Interruptions)

Let everybody have a good laugh.

Yes!

It’s good for the… you know. You can also have a good laugh!

C’est bien mais c’est moins bien pour la démocratie.

(Interruptions)

Mais ainsi est faite notre système, Madame la présidente, et ce peuple ne souhaite aucun abus de votre part. J’en ai terminé, Madame la présidente.

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Pa pou ena! An hon. Member: Comme l’ancien régime!

Hon. Damry, I think, if I am not mistaken! Yes! (4.18 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Finance (Mr D. Damry): Madam Speaker, with a copy of our sacred Constitution in my hand, I commend the Attorney General for introducing this Bill of massive importance to the Financial Sector and to the nation. Back in 2023, the proposed enactment of the Financial Crimes Commission Act caused a public row that highlighted the scandalous attempt by the previous government to infringe on the powers of the Director of Public Prosecution. The transfer of powers of prosecution for financial crimes to be newly appointed Director of the Financial Crimes Commission, an officer appointed by the Prime Minister only was a gross attempt to flout our sacred Constitution and undermine the very foundation of justice. Wilding powers of prosecution to an individual who is not independent is not only anti-constitutional; it is cruel. Loyalty and independence are inherently contradictory. Allow me to quote William Shakespeare in Macbeth – “Who can be wise, amazed, temperate and furious, loyal and neutral in a moment?” No man, Madam Speaker, no man can claim to be independent under the circumstances set by the previous version of the Financial Crimes Commission Act. Yet, the previous government chose to push for this provision. They felt emboldened enough to go one step further in the systemic state capture of our institutions. It illustrates the utter disregard for our Constitution, for the democratic principle that we, Mauritians, cherish; utter contempt for the rule of law. This, Madam Speaker was the hallmark of the previous government. At the end of 2023, it became very clear that Mauritius was slowly but surely drifting towards autocracy. The Prime Minister, Dr. Ramgoolam knew too well the risk of a biased Financial Crime Commission applying arbitrary charges on Mauritians of all walk of life. On the ground of diverging political opinion, he himself has been the victim of the political vendetta. You will recall, maybe not many of you know in this House that the Prime Minister, Dr. Ramgoolam, joined politics for a cause – to fight for justice in the courts and in all spheres of life, he fought to maintain the Privy Council as the highest Court for Mauritius sparing the country from threat that an autocratic government would infringe on the judiciary and deprive Mauritians of a fair justice system. It is in his DNA to fight, to restitute the full powers of the DPP. In the light of the past experience of the previous government, it became obvious that the only route to restore the systems of checks and balances in the financial system was to kick the previous government out of office and its MPs out of Parliament. The people of Mauritius voted intelligently. This, Madam Speaker, is such a relief. I still wonder what drove the previous government to hijack the democratic system prevailing in this country...

Madam Speaker, on a point of order.

Yes, one moment! There is a point of order.

I believe that the speaker is being very irrelevant.

Yes, and also you are reading from your paper. Try and come and talk on the Bill, please.

Yes, I think I am speaking about the powers of the DPP at the moment.

Well, try and…

Yes. Okay. So, perhaps it was the illusion of isolation. Being on an island, they assumed their catastrophic mismanagement would escape international scrutiny. While we were producing this glaring loophole in our financial legislation, Madam Speaker, the financial community was ringing alarming bells. Madam Speaker, in his address, the hon. Leader of Opposition stated that the 2023 Act was passed to strengthen our financial services sector. That is what the hon. Member said. So, let us analyse his Statement for a moment. World over, governments are reinforcing their legislation to curb the flows of illegal finance and consolidate the trust in their financial system. The track for illicit funds and illegal financing cuts across borders and jurisdiction. When our Financial Crimes Commission Bill was voted, Mauritius had just been able to entangle the threat of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) that was choking our global business sector, the last thing we needed was another blow to our reputation. A law that allowed some financial crime could go unprosecuted and therefore, unpunished. Did it occur to the previous government that this legislation was about to weaken the fundamentals of an economic activity that accounts for 15% of our GDP? Did they even consider the impact of a poor legislation on the much-needed flow of foreign currency that keeps our balance of payment afloat? Was it an overconfidence bias or just sheer incompetence that led the previous government to believe that the integrity of our financial centre would not be damaged from such obvious flaws in our laws? This is not mine to answer. I am just happy that we are now undoing the process and restoring trust and confidence in our jurisdiction for the benefit of all motions. As we are turning the page on this sad chapter in our legislative history, it is time to look forward and think of what we would like to build for the future. In our program, we said we wanted to build a bridge to the future. Yes, we are restoring the powers of the DPP in the matters of financial crime. Our goal is to ensure that in the future, there is manifest independence in the conduct of prosecution of all prosecutions. Luckily, we are not the previous government. We are not a bunch of mindless, power-hungry politicians. Otherwise, we would have already used the provisions of the present Financial Crimes Commission Act to put charges on the previous government’s leaders and the cronies. It would have been so easy to do it but we chose not to. We did not do it because we wanted to show that we are faithful to the spirit of the Constitution, faithful to the ideals of our founding fathers. We want the public to see that we mean business when we say that important prosecution decisions will be exercised on strictly neutral grounds. Meanwhile, Madam Speaker, there are numerous suspicions of financial crimes from the previous government that the public would like to see brought to Court. Understandably, the public is impatient, thirsty for accountability but the public needs to know that any proceedings will be carried out with fairness and impartiality as we pledged to do. We are building a system that is made to last, not a short-lived framework to mark a political transition. With this, I commend the Attorney General for bringing the Bill to the House. Thank you.

I will suspend the House for about half an hour. At 4.27 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.12 p.m. with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Please be seated! We have the quorum, we can start. Next person is hon. Lobine! Mr K. Lobine (First Member for La Caverne & Phoenix): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on this very important amendment Bill. First of all, let me seize this opportunity to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, for being elected as Madam Speaker, and the Deputy Speaker. So, we have restored some dignity and decorum in this temple of democracy. Talking about democracy, the hon. Attorney General has very vividly portrayed what is the vision of this Government: restoring democracy. This is a stepping stone; this is the correction of the dérives of the previous regime with regard to systematically attacking our democracy. Our basic principle of separation of powers has always been hampered by this previous government. Restoring the prosecutorial powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions goes in line with what we have promised to the people of Mauritius. We have been voted to come here and to represent the people of Mauritius overwhelmingly. Madam Speaker, if I may, the advent of the Financial Crimes Commission Act, when we were in the Opposition during the last mandate, we vociferously condemned this Bill. We vociferously voiced out our concerns as to the way things were going. Surprisingly, the former government paid no heed to what we saying. It was just like dilo lor bred sonz! So, Madam Speaker, when we were elected overwhelmingly to represent the people in Mauritius, the first and foremost function was to restore the dignity within the ambit of separation of powers. The Executive has got its role; the Judiciary has got its role, and the Parliament has got its role. The Director of Public Prosecutions, as clearly pointed out by the hon. Attorney General, has a very important constitutional role. This, Madam Speaker, goes in line, if I may quote the Government Programme at page 2, under the very important caption of Democracy, Governance, Integrity and Constitutional Reform, paragraph 6, 4th line – “Government is committed to restoring the trust of the nation in independent and impartial institutions.” So, this very first amendment to this very infamous Financial Crimes Commission Act is the first step to restore the powers of the DPP that has been curtailed several times by the previous government. When I was listening to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I am not surprised at all as to the argumentative with regard to their views on the powers of the DPP because we know way back in 2015, how the previous government, the MSM led government, the l’Alliance Lepep government wanted to create history in the wrong way by introducing the Public Prosecution Bill and amending the Constitution to curtail the powers of the DPP. This is in the DNA of the MSM! But I am very surprised...

And now, PMSD!

... and astonished that the PMSD, in 2024, swallowed their pride! You know, we were so happy of getting out of government to preserve democracy and yet, they sat with the MSM! Mr Xavier-Luc Duval in his speech during the Financial Crimes Commission Bill, condemned the way the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions was being curtailed. Yet, the PMSD went along, condoned this act of treason against our democracy, against the people of Mauritius! Fortunately, the people of Mauritius have sent us here and have sent these two gentlemen there. Madam Speaker, this first stepping stone is now another stepping stone for the hon. Attorney General to come forward with a comprehensive legislation, a robust, a transparent legislation that would really combat fraud and corruption and financial crimes in this country. Here again, Madam Speaker, I shall refer to page 5 of the Government Programme whereby at paragraph 10, it is clearly stated – the hon. Leader of the Opposition was saying that we need to have a legislation that will fight fraud and corruption –, but here it is, I quote – “Government will repeal the Financial Crimes Commission (FCC) Act and will set up a national crime agency which will be better equipped to deal more effectively with financial and other serious crimes.” So, it is clearly stated in the Government Programme. The first and foremost is to act promptly to stop the rot that is being caused with regard to our penal system, to restore the dignity, to give to the Director of Public Prosecutions his own right to act in his role as per the provisions of the Constitution. And, the second step is to repeal this infamous Financial Crimes Commission Act and have a comprehensive legislation that will set up this National Crime Agency. So, I welcome this Bill, we support this Bill and I am sure that the nation at large today is breathing with a sense of relief that at least we are preserving a very important institution, that is, the Director of Public Prosecutions. All those cases that we have in court will remind the DNA of the MSM to curtail the office of Director of Public Prosecutions way back in 2015 after trying through the backdoor to come with this Public Prosecution Bill. They removed the administrative control in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions and reverted back to the Attorney General’s Office; this case is still before the Supreme Court. The DPP lodged a case in the Supreme Court and we are still awaiting this case to be heard. Just to tell you how the image of the country took a back seat with the MSM-led government trying curtail the powers of the DPP. Those are things of the past. We are looking toward the future so that let Mauritius be Mauritius again. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Hon. Minister! (5.20 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, the object of the Bill as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum is to restore the prosecutorial powers of the DPP under the Financial Crimes Commission Act. Let us remind the House again what Section 72 sub-section (6) of the Constitution reads – “(6) In the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by this section, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.”. And, yet, as has just been highlighted by my learned friend, Hon. Lobine, the MSM has systematically tried to control the DPP in the exercise of his constitutional powers and the enactment of the Financial Crimes Commission Act in 2023 is one, but the last of the long series of attempt to curtail the powers of the DPP. Hon. Lobine mentioned that right after coming to power in 2015 the first legislation that was passed, the Financial Amendment Bill, was to take the financial and administrative independence of the DPP and put in under the aegis of the Attorney General. Since then, each time the DPP had to travel or an officer of the DPP’s Office had to travel they had to ask for permission from the Attorney General and very often these permissions were denied. So, that was one means of putting pressure on the DPP. Another means was the Prosecution Commission which, at that point, the PMSD decided not to support because it was anti-constitutional. But there was more; there is more, Madam Speaker. Back in 2015, let us remember, that was the time of terror. One of the darkest times of the democracy of Mauritius. One of the darkest days of democracy where people were being handcuffed, humiliated, brought before courts with unsubstantiated provisional charges. And, among the long list of people who suffered this political vendetta, there was also an attempt – let us not forget – to arrest the Director of Public Prosecutions. One early morning, he had to sneak out from the backdoor and seek legal protection from the judiciary under what was a blatant case of abusive arrest. So, Madam Speaker, what happened in 2023, the attempt by the government to curtail the powers of the DPP was not innocent. It was a deliberate and calculated policy to curtail the role of the DPP. As rightly pointed out by the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to seize the Supreme Court for constitutional redress. And, what is the Director of Prosecutions asking the Supreme Court to state? The DPP humbly praised from the Supreme Court for a declaration pursuant to Section 83 (1) and 83 (2) of the Constitution that the Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023 contravenes Section 1 and Section 72 of the Constitution and is accordingly void. This is exactly what we, when we were in the Opposition, we stated when the Bill was debated. We stated unequivocally what was going to happen; what was happening was against the Constitution. Today, with this Bill, Madam Speaker, we are correcting a wrong. We are giving back the power of the DPP; we are restoring his constitutional powers. And, we are doing it in three ways; there are three sets of amendments which are being brought by this Bill. The first one, is restoring the power of the DPP to institute prosecutions in financial crimes. Under the existing legislation, once the Commission has completed its enquiry, it can decide, without having to go through the DPP’s Office, it can decide to institute prosecutions. Now, this can be subject of abuse when we know that the Financial Crimes Commission is manned by political nominees, handpicked by the Prime Minister, whose terms and conditions are known only to the Prime Minister. So, it is very easy to see the risk of the Prime Minister dictating to the Financial Crimes Commission to initiate criminal prosecutions for financial crimes against opponents of the then government. But, now, with this amendment the Financial Crimes Commission when they complete their investigation, they are duty-bound to send the file to the DPP and it is the DPP who will institute prosecution or the DPP who will authorise the Financial Crimes Commission to institute criminal proceedings. So, this is the first amendment that we are bringing. The second amendment which for me is more fundamental and more important than the first one. It relates to the constitutional power of the DPP not to prosecute; to discontinue prosecution. Now, before we had the Financial Crimes Commission Act, we used to have the Prevention of Corruption Act. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, ICAC, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, had to investigate a criminal crime and then they decide, after gathering all the information, they write a report and send everything to the DPP’s Office with a recommendation. The recommendation can be, we prosecuted or we discontinue investigation; we close the file. But, they had, they were under the legal obligation to refer the file to the Director of Public Prosecutions. They could not close an enquiry without informing the DPP because the DPP may very well not be on the same wavelength as the FCC. Even if the FCC thinks that there is not sufficient evidence to bring prosecution, the DPP could have thought otherwise. This is why, Madam Speaker, ICAC never sent to the DPP files relating to Angus Road, to bet365, to l’affaire Saint-Louis, to stag party because they knew that they could not close the file without the consent of the DPP including Alvaro Sobrinho. So, in 2023 what they did they do? They amended the law to allow the Financial Crimes Commission to terminate enquiry, to set aside the file, close the file in the back, behind the DPP and there is no legal obligation for them to send the file to the DPP. So, the DPP is not in a position to know whether there is a case, what the status of the case is, whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute or not but now we are changing it. With this amendment, the Financial Crimes Commission is dutybound. When they finish their investigation, they have to transfer the file to the DPP and the DPP will decide. The DPP can decide that ‘okay, prosecute’ or ‘okay, go back and investigate further’ or the DPP can say ‘we discontinue’. I say this is the most important aspect of the Bill, Madam Speaker, because the power that was given to the Financial Crimes Commission was the power to cover up all the mistakes, all the fraudulent activities of those close to power. Donc, c’était une institution pour blanchir les criminels et les corrompus. The third set of amendments, Madam Speaker, relates to compounding of offense. Now, what is compounding of offense? You are caught red-handed; you have given a bribe or you have taken a bribe or you have used your influence unduly for gratification. You have acted corruptly or you have mismanaged funds, dilapider les fonds publics. So, you are caught red- handed and you have to be prosecuted. Today, as the law stands, the Financial Crimes Commission can call you and say ‘ah, you have been a naughty boy, you have been a bad guy. So, you know what? I will give you a fine. Pay me Rs10,000, case closed and once I have compounded your offense, no one can prosecute you for what you have done’. No one, however big the crime, however much you have stolen, however big the corruption offense, the Financial Crimes Commission was given the power to compound and once they have compounded an offense, no one, not even the DPP could have prosecuted that person for that offense. Now, how can that be that in a democracy, people can get away with it when we know that the FSC is manned by politically appointed people? So, what we are doing today, Madam Speaker, is amending the law so that before the Financial Crimes Commission can compound any offense, they have to refer the file and get the consent of the DPP. So, this is the safeguard. The DPP obviously, they may agree with the compounding or they may not agree with the compounding but the power is restored back to the DPP. And it is the same in many other legislations. For example, in the Customs Act, you have the possibility to enter into an agreement with the MRA, you pay the penalty and your offense is compounded but it is subject to the consent of the DPP. So, as the law state, we did not have this safeguard. So, what we are proposing to do now with this amendment is to get the consent of the DPP before the Financial Crimes Commission can compound any offense. The hon. Leader of the Opposition stated that we are only amending a few provisions of the law which means that we agree with the remaining provisions of the law and therefore we agree that the other provisions of the law are good law. No, Madam Speaker. No, we have pledged in our electoral manifesto, in the Presidential Address a fortnight ago that we are going to repeal the whole of the Financial Crimes Commission Act, we are going to replace Financial Crimes Commission with a new national crime agency which will be totally independent, which will be robust and which will have the means to do their work effectively and efficiently but it will take time. It will take time after consultations to come up with this piece of law. So, in the meantime, through this Bill, we are addressing the most urgent and objectionable provisions of the Financial Crimes Commission which is the power that was usurped from the Director of Public Prosecutions so that now when we do come with our National Crime Agency, Madam Speaker, there never will be a covering machine again. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, hon. Narsinghen, please! (5.34 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade (Mr H. Narsinghen): Madam Speaker, thank you to give me the floor. My intervention will be on the following points – • I will comment briefly on the structure of the Bill and its importance; • I will be commending the Attorney General; • I will be speaking about the political motives behind the Financial Crimes Commission and how the law was ad hominem; • I will be commenting briefly on the violation of the Constitution and violation of democracy; • Commenting on violation of fundamental principles of justice and the criminal justice system and referring to the independence principle of fairness and impartiality, and finally • The shortcomings of the Financial Crimes Commission. Comme point préliminaire, Madame la présidente, j’attendais beaucoup de l’intervention du leader de l’Opposition. Comme vous le savez, cette auguste Assemblée est supposée maitriser l’art de la dialectique. J’attendais beaucoup, et moi j’allais réfuter, et je pensais que le leader de l’Opposition allait réfuter l’honorable Attorney General. Je suis resté sur ma faim, mais donc ce sera pour la prochaine fois. So, commenting on the structure of the Bill, Madam Speaker, the Bill comes to cure a mess and I would say a big mess created by the previous regime and what may qualify the FCC Act of 2023 as a vicious and insidious attack on democracy and our criminal justice system. Entrusting powers to the Director General of the FCC was potentially a breach of section 72 of the Constitution but also section 1 and section 10 of the Constitution. Madam Speaker, we should not have a short memory but let us not forget as pointed out by earlier speakers that there was an attempt to undermine the powers of the DPP with the introduction of the Prosecution Commission Bill and in 2023, the killer of democracy and human rights repeated the crime again. Il récidive, Madame la présidente. As if it was not enough to be the serial killers of people like Mr Kistnen, Kanakiah and others, they are also serial killers of our democracy under cardinal principles of our criminal justice system. The FCC Act of 2023, Madam Speaker, breaches section 72(6) which reads as follows – “(6) In the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by this section, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.” So, indirectly, the DPP has always been having sole responsibility in matters of prosecution. Now, coming to my second point – commending the Attorney General, I must commend the Attorney General for the celerity with which he has come with such a Bill. Today in fact, with the calibre of the Attorney General, we are in safe hands; not in the hands of those who will neglect their job and enjoy stag parties. Let us remind the population that the actual Attorney General has left a lucrative practice to be at the service of the nation and he has to be commended for that. Madam Speaker, I am also impressed by the comprehensiveness of the Bill and the quality of the drafting. I know you got a team behind you but at the same time, we can feel that it has got your touch. Thank you. And above all, when we read the amending Bill, we can see the clarity and also the improvement which has been brought to the Bill. But above all, when we read the amending Bill, we can see the clarity and also the improvement which has been brought to the Bill. I can cite a few examples –  the Commission is now made accountable to the DPP when an investigation is discontinued by virtue of section 5 of the Bill;  the DPP may also, you will see, requests the FCC to give reasons, and this is quite new, for discontinuing with an investigation, and  compounding offences under the FCC Act or Declaration of Assets Act will also require the consent of the DPP. Donc, retournons à César ce qui appartient à César ! More importantly, Madam Speaker, the Director-General of the FCC shall not prosecute except with the consent of the DPP. This is in line with the letters of the Constitution; not only the letters of the Constitution, but more importantly, what we do not realise, with the spirit of the Constitution. So, it seems that the previous regime was either not aware or did it deliberately to forget the very spirit of the Mauritian Constitution. So, obviously, even in the past, the DPP could delegate and give consent for others to prosecute, even the Police could prosecute, but with delegation of powers. Nobody could usurp his powers. Now, I come to a very, very important point, what I call: what was the political motive? The Leader of the Opposition was giving a number of reasons, but when you look at the substance of the Bill at that time, which eventually became a law, we did not see any curative measure to address the concerns of international organisations. So, at face value, the Bill seemed to have noble intention and legitimate intention. However, let us not forget the obsession and the compulsion, what we call in the French medical jargon, a TOC, which many of the politicians in the previous regime suffered from. To understand what is TOC, it is to kill politically the actual Prime Minister when he was on the ground. The FCC Bill came after the failure, just remember, of more than 12 or 12 concocted cases against the actual Prime Minister. In the same vein, the Good Governance and Public Integrity Bill, which later became an Act, with its noble, probably intended objectives, was, however, primarily destined to kill politically the actual hon. Prime Minister. So, it was - and I would lay emphasis - a consulted plan and a plot to finish the main opponent, conducted by Judas, but also, the master of Judas and other accomplices like the Stag Party men who were involved. They strategized, they conspired, nothing less than one of the biggest – and I hammer on that – conspiracies in our political history, Madam Speaker. One Judas in under arrest for now, but I believe that the King of Judas is still scot-free. So, you know how the actual Prime Minister saved him from la poubelle de l’histoire in the by- election that we had. My appeal, Madam Speaker, we should never, ever have ad hominem laws in our country. Even if it will not please the Leader of the Opposition, this was definitely a law destined to finish off one man who was haunting the mind of a dictator’s dream. Sad for our beloved country! Now, coming to another very important point where we saw a violation of the Constitution and democracy. You will see, Madam Speaker, one of the fundamental tenets of democracy, a legal concept, touched by many of my friends, enshrined in our Constitution, which is not a mere rhetoric. This concept of separation of powers is not concrete in our Constitution, I concur, but it is underlying throughout multiple sections of the Constitution and consecrated by many eminent judges, like the father of the Attorney General, Justice Glover, Justice Rault, Justice Lallah and so many others. Many tend to think that separation of powers is just a classical separation of powers as expanded by Montesquieu, as referred to by the Attorney General. But over time, many other jurists in US, in India have further refined this concept of separation of powers. This is where, in my own humble opinion, the DPP in trite law is not a pure member of the Executive. According to me, in the course of our future revisiting of the Constitution, we have to think whether we should place the DPP under the heading of the Executive or we have to create another chapter where we have, for example, quasi-judicial bodies. This is food for thought, reflection for the upcoming amendment of the Constitution. So, when we look at the post of the DPP provided by section 72 of Constitution, you will see and you will understand, Madam Speaker, that this has been purposely entrenched and constitutionalised to make him independent and impartial. The Attorney General also mentioned that, that quotation came from Professor de Smith, himself, where he said – “(…) to safeguard the stream of criminal justice from being polluted by the noxious political contamination (…).” In fact, the Law Reform Commission took on board the quotation coming from the horse’s mouth, that is, the Professor de Smith, the founding father of the Mauritian Constitution. That is what the previous regime did with the FCC, and shame for this abominable crime against our democracy and Constitution. The same words hammered, as mentioned rightly by the Attorney General, during the Lancaster House conference. As per section 72, the role of the DPP is to prosecute, but also to oversee investigation. This is where, for example, in the case of Kistnen, where the DPP asked the Police to make un complément d’enquête, and this is possible. The Police or the ICAC or the FCC is meant to investigate, not to prosecute. Never in the history of Mauritius has any politician thought to give such powers to the Police, and they gave it to the FCC. So, the segregation within the Executive itself prevents any form of conflict of interest. This is very important for the population to know. You will see that the DPP and its officers are guided by stringent international standards as well as local standards in order to guarantee fairness, independence and impartiality. Besides the violation of the Constitution, you will see a number of fundamental principles of the criminal justice system has been violated. I think at this stage, it is important to understand the difference between the appointment of the DPP and the Director-General of the FCC. You will note that the DPP, a very important point, is appointed by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission whereas the Director-General of the FCC is appointed by the President, but very important point to note, upon the advice of the Prime Minister, which in effective terms, means that the Director-General of the FCC is a stooge person of the Prime Minister. You cannot take powers from the DPP and give these powers to the Director- General of the FCC. This is not done in any democratic country. Look around, in so many countries, this was the reason why most of the time you will confer powers to one DPP or with a collegial system. At most, one day, while revisiting the Constitution, if we want to improve the role of the DPP, maybe, my suggestion is to have a collegial system. This is a possibility. However, it depends who you place at the helm of the institution. When referring to the ad hominem law, they were not only aiming at our actual Prime Minister, they were aiming also at the previous DPP and the actual DPP. So, they were not only aiming the Prime Minister, but three persons at one go with one shot. This is what they wanted to do. Another very important point, unlike the DPP, you will see that the DPP enjoys security of tenure, which is guaranteed by section 93 of the Constitution. We cannot just put in the DPP and then you vote him out. No, this is not done. You have to follow strictly the provisions of section 93 of the Constitution. Whereas the post of Director-General of the FCC, at any time, you can boot him out. This is not acceptable in a democracy. So, security of tenure is a sine qua non condition to ensure independence, impartiality and above all integrity. Whether these people who were at the FCC or the ICAC, whether, at that point in time, they commanded integrity. Integrity, Madam Speaker, is very important. You will see that the DPP is the servant of the Constitution and the State and public interest above all, but not to the PM of the day. He is guided by the Constitution and, as I mentioned, by international standards. Now, another very important point, Madam Speaker, by the fact that the DPP is the sole authority to prosecute, this will ensure uniformity and the use of objective standards. So, once more I would reiterate to say that the spirit of the Mauritian Constitution, that is beautifully defined in the enlightening article of Professor S. A. de Smith – this is a must for everybody to read; go and read that article: ‘Constitutionalism in a plural society’. Two things here: firstly, we are in a plural context, in a plural democracy, and secondly, very important, we are in a small jurisdiction. Reality and perception of bias exist and De Smith, in his beautiful article, explained how there are certain unique features in our Constitution. So, allowing the FCC to prosecute did not guarantee uniformity and consistency. At the same time, you will see that we had a system of check and balance when it comes to the DPP, in which you could have judicial review but not with the FCC. Madam Speaker, I will stop here. To conclude I would say, yes, this Act of Parliament, the FCC was an ad hominem law. It violated basic principles of democracy. It violated the principles of separation of powers and this is a shame for the previous regime to tamper with our democracy, human rights of Mauritius. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you! Hon. Beechook, try and keep an eye on your time as well.

I will keep an eye on you.

Yes, on the Whip!

She will do the job. (5.50 p.m.) Mr R. Beechook (Second Member for Flacq & Bon Accueil): Merci, Madame la présidente. Lorsque j’écoute les orateurs précédents, je vois qu’il y a parmi des éminents légistes, des avocats, un spécialiste de la finance donc les avocats, ils ont abordé ce sujet, ce problème sous le thème d’une approche très légaliste et moins de par ma formation, je vais essayer d’aborder ce problème qui est effectivement un problème mais avant tout est un problème démocratique. Donc, lorsque j’ai étudié cela, ce problème, j’ai essayé de comprendre. Je faisais ce qu’on appelle la généalogie de ce problème pour essayer de comprendre comment cela se fait que dans l’histoire de notre démocratie, il y a, sauf erreur de ma part, il y a eu cinq tentatives d’amender la Constitution. Cinq fois ils ont amendé la Constitution et à chaque fois lorsque je regarde le MSM est au pouvoir. C’est le MSM qui touche à la Constitution. Je ne dis pas que c’est mauvais mais essayons de creuser un peu plus loin. Pour comprendre cela, je regarde la composition de cette Assemblée, je constate qu’il y a, à peu près neuf partis politiques représentés. J’essaie de comprendre dans l’histoire de ce pays, comment cela se fait qu’il n’y a que le MSM, qui lorsqu’ils sont au pouvoir, touche aux fondamentaux de notre société, et je reviens justement…

Je peux me permettre de vous arrêter ?

Oui Madame.

Il y a d’autres gouvernements qui ont amendé dans le bon sens.

Oui, je suis d’accord avec vous. Moi, je dis pourquoi…

Il ne faut pas non plus penser qu’il n’y a eu que ce type d’amendement constitutionnel. Je suis bien placée pour le savoir.

Je suis tout à fait d’accord. C’est pour cela que je dis qu’il touche aux fondamentaux de notre démocratie. Donc, ici, le problème dont il s’agit, c’est qu’on touche à quoi ? On touche à la liberté du Directeur des poursuites publiques. Il ne s’agit pas, comme certains de mes amis l’on dit, de réduire le pouvoir du DPP ; il s’agit de confisquer, d’arracher les pouvoirs du DPP. Lorsque je fais une analyse de cette salle, je regarde les partis politiques. Nous avons remporté les élections 60-0, Madame la présidente, il y a 64 membres qui sont dans la majorité. Nous avons la majorité absolue pour amender la Constitution et pour faire ce que le MSM a fait. Si on avait comme objectif, par exemple : la revanche politique, on aurait pu amender la Constitution et tous ceux qui ont commis des offenses, des crimes contre la république, nos institutions, les finances publiques, ils seraient derrière les barreaux. But why don’t we do it? Parce que nous sommes républicains et démocrates. Si j’analyse plus profondément sur les neufs partis politiques, représentés ici dans le parlement. Ce n’est pas une surprise, il y a un seul parti qui n’est pas républicain ; nous sommes tous républicains : le Parti travailliste, le MMM, Rezistans ek Alternativ, Nouveaux Démocrates, même le PMSD, nos amis Rodriguais, ce sont des partis ici de la république, mais qu’est que le MSM ? Le MSM est avant tout un parti qui n’est pas républicain, c’est un Trust. C’est une propriété privée…

Yes !

… de la famille Jugnauth. Et lorsqu’on gère un pays en tant qu’un démocrate et lorsqu’on gère un Trust en tant que gérant d’un Trust, une entité privée, voilà ce qu’il arrive, on essaye d’instrumentaliser toutes les institutions possibles au profit des gestionnaires de ce Trust. Voilà symboliquement ce que le MSM a voulu faire avec l’office du Directeur des poursuites publiques. Je prends l’exemple : lorsqu’ils ont introduit, Madame la présidente, le Prosecution Commission Bill en 2016, contextuellement, pourquoi l’ont-ils fait ? Parce que les charges qu’ils avaient mises à l’encontre de l’ancien Premier ministre, l’une après l’autre les charges étaient, à juste titre, abandonnées par l’office du DPP ou l’ancien Premier ministre, il remportait ses procès ou il y avait des non-lieux prononcés par la magistrature. Donc, que faire à ce moment-là ? Ils ont essayé d’introduire le Prosecution Commission Bill en 2016 avec comme objectif the issue of directions by the Prosecution Commission qui était un corps politique appointed by the executive et l’exécutif est un corps politique, donc avec un agenda politisé, to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Donc, ils voulaient tout simplement faire tomber le Dr. Navinchandra Ramgoolam, cela n’a pas eu lieu. Rebelote avec FCC Bill. Donc nous voyons qu’il a une constance dans la logique du MSM, il y a une constance d’éroder et d’approprier les pouvoirs non-seulement de l’office du DPP, mais de toutes les institutions possibles du pays. J’appelle cela l’intervention et l’ingérence nauséabonde, machiavélique du MSM. Il y a plusieurs exemples, Madame la présidente, il n ’y a pas que l’office du DPP. Nous avons eu, pour la première fois dans l’histoire, des appointments à la Commission électorale…

Excusez-moi.

Oui Madame.

Il vous reste trois minutes. Essayez de conclure.

Oui, je vais essayer de conclure.

Non, mais essayez de vous concentrer sur le projet de loi.

J ’y reviendrai, Madame la présidente. Il y a eu plusieurs exemples comme la Commission électorale, la tentative de d’arrestation du DPP, le complot Dufry-Frydu ; on oublie le phone tapping. On a vu comment le Commissaire de police donnait des instructions pour faire arrêter…

(Interruptions)

No, I am trying to do it by myself.

… l’honorable Duval. L’interventionnisme du MSM, c’est même étendu jusqu’à la presse. Par cela, ce que j’ai envie de dire, c’est que cette tendance à vouloir s’accaparer des institutions de l’état et de le mettre au profit du MSM, c’est ce qu’ils ont essayé de faire avec ce Bill et je félicite ce gouvernement et notre Attorney General qui est venu avec cet amendement non pas comme je vous ai dit pour, on va dire, donner la liberté à l’office du DPP en matière de poursuite et d’arrêt de poursuite mais aussi on a essayé, on a empêché la création d’un monstre politique qu’aurait pu être le FCC. On a donné plusieurs exemples. Je prends l’exemple, rien que lorsqu’il s’agit de l’appointment du Directeur général. Essayons d’évaluer le calibre, d’accord ? Pour ce qu’il s’agit du DPP – “No Person shall be qualified to hold or act in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions unless he is qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.” C’est dire la carrure d’un homme qui doit représenter l’Office du DPP et on a voulu faire quoi ? Le remplacer par qui ? Navin Beekarry ! Ce même Navin Beekarry qui lorsqu’il y avait le procès de Medpoint, a changé de version du jour au lendemain dans ses submissions of Privy Council. Comment voulez-vous que le peuple fasse confiance à cette substitution ? Ce n’est pas possible. Il n’y a pas de comparaison entre un DPP digne de ce nom et un Navin Beekarry. Voilà, je terminerai par dire, Madame la présidente – je dois respecter mes 10 minutes –que nous avons sauvé la démocratie, nous avons restauré la confiance dans le processus judiciaire et John Locke et Montesquieu doivent se réjouir dans leur tombe. Nous avons restauré la séparation des pouvoirs. Merci, Madame la présidente.

Hon. Minister Ramful! (6.00 p.m.) The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade (Mr D. Ramful): Madame la présidente de la Chambre, puisqu’on parle aujourd’hui aux amendements des pouvoirs d’une institution – le Bureau du Directeur des Poursuites Publiques, permettez-moi de dire ceci. Il y avait un temps dans ce pays où nos institutions, supposément indépendantes, étaient muselées et enchaînées, où on ne pouvait plus faire respirer la démocratie. Je ne parle pas, Madame la présidente, de l’air pré-indépendance ou colonial. Je parle de l’année dernière, la période de 2019 à 2024 où le régime, l’empire MSM était au pouvoir et cet empire qui voulait faire de Maurice un pays autocrate. Madame la présidente, comme le Premier ministre nous a révélés mardi dernier pendant la PNQ, le PMQT – on avait une période, la période dont j’ai mentionnée, on avait des bay looker du MSM, on avait aussi de bay ekouter du MSM qui mettait nos téléphones sur l’écoute et comme avait bien dit le Premier ministre, personne n’échappait à la surveillance étatique qui veut dire que nos droits à la vie privée pendant cette période n’existaient plus sous le régime MSM. Un autre exemple, le plus flagrant Madame la présidente, et cela, les Mauriciens le suivaient en live chaque semaine. C’était la manière dont les travaux dans cette auguste Assemblée étaient arbitrés, une institution aussi importante que le Parlement, supposée être la voix du peuple, arbitrée par un Speaker hautement politisé. Ses rulings n’avaient ni queue ni tête, non-sens. Je me souviens pendant la campagne, Madame la présidente, l’honorable DPM avait dit que si nous retournions au pouvoir, on va faire enlever tous ces rulings du Hansard. Je crois qu’il est temps de le faire.

Si mo ti ena foto la, mo tir li mo mem.

Et c’est la même chose qu’on a voulu faire Madame la présidente, avec la loi sur le FCC, introduite l’année dernière pour remplacer l’ICAC. Cette loi était pire que la loi sur l’ICAC. D’ailleurs, l’ICAC, en tant qu’un Law Enforcement Agency, même sans les pouvoirs de décision sur les poursuites, était déjà hautement controversé et vous vous souvenez Madame la présidente, puisque vous êtes avocate vous aussi, vous souvenez du jugement d’une magistrate sur les contrats alloués pendant le Covid. L’ICAC était taxé de Undergoing Selective Investigation et on sait déjà la liste de ces nombreux cas, qu’on appelle des high profile cases dénoncés à l’ICAC mais qui pour des raisons qu’on sait n’a pas eu d’aboutissement à ce jour mais on aurait cru quand on avait passé la FCC que le MSM allait se ressaisir et qu’on allait nous proposer finalement une loi pour remédier à la situation mais on nous a proposé une loi sans précédent, pire que le Prosecution Bill proposé par le père Jugnauth et qui avait fait le PMSD prendre la porte de sortie pour re-rentrer après. La loi FCC qu’on avait proposée, c’était une loi exceptionnelle qui frôlait l’inconstitutionnalité, entachait les principes de séparations du pouvoir et qui menaçait l’état de droit. C’est ce que nous avons été proposés sous la FCC, et même Beekarry. C’était très clair, Madame la présidente. C’était une tentative délibérée à travers une simple projet de loi d’éroder l’Office du DPP de ses pouvoirs sacrosaints, ceux d’instituer et d’entreprendre des poursuites dans tous les cas criminels inclus les crimes financiers. Pire, ce qu’on a voulu donner, on a donné ces mêmes pouvoirs, les pouvoirs constitutionnels à une nominée politique, le Directeur de la FCC. Madame la présidente, j’étais surpris pendant les débats sur le FCC Bill – comment certains politiciens – je ne dis pas tout – certains politiciens, chevronnés et expériencés qui étaient supposés de donner l’exemple, se contredisaient avec ces mêmes principes qu’ils défendaient dans le passé. Parmi, il y avait l’honorable Collendavelloo qui disait être le parrain de l’ICAC puisqu’il avait lui-même présidé le Select Committee sur la fraude et la corruption en 2001. Et vous savez, Madame la présidente, ce qu’il avait dit dans le rapport sur le Select Committee sur la fraude et la corruption ? Permettez-moi de citer un extrait, Madame la présidente. Sur les pouvoirs de l’ICAC et du DPP, il disait ceci – “We have read with alarm the considered opinion of some commentators who feel that ICAC must shoulder its responsibilities all the way and itself conduct the prosecution of cases it has investigated.” On avait proposé à cette époque-là que l’ICAC aurait dû avoir les pouvoirs de poursuite et d’investigation. Mais l’honorable Collendavelloo, en 2021, n’était pas d’accord. He said: “We do not agree!” Alors, il vient justifier cela en disant que: “By virtue of section 72 of our Constitution, the DPP has the sole and unfettered control over criminal prosecutions. Il dit: “Nothing that has been said can persuade us that an exception should be made in respect of fraud and corruption.” We believe that it is the DPP and the DPP alone who controls what has been done by ICAC in the course of the investigation and to decide whether the investigation should result in a prosecution. Il continue, il dit: “The DPP is a highly respected institution in this country. The DPP’s decision may be found to be wrong, but the DPP must continue to act independently. To immerse the DPP in conquering two parts of investigative process is to cloud the DPP’s judgement from the very start. It would also be wrong to concentrate into ICAC the task of intelligence gathering, investigating and prosecuting at the same time.” This would lead to the creation – regardez cela – this would lead to the creation of a monster…. An hon. Member: MSM!

…who would soon get out of control by reason of this over concentration of power. Et c’est ce qu’ils sont venus faire avec la FCC, Madame la présidente. They have created a monster ! Heureusement pour le peuple, la population a réagi ! La population a réagi. On a gagné. Je félicite l’Attorney General et je félicite le Premier ministre. Aujourd’hui, on a restauré les pouvoirs constitutionnels du DPP. Madame la présidente, je ne vais pas être long. Vous savez, there is one symbol and basic reason, les légistes vont le savoir, why the power to prosecute should remain with the DPP. It is because the DPP is not a political nominee, but an independent judicial officer. When he takes his decision, he does not look at your political colour. He acts in the public interest as per the code of public prosecutors in order to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. Most importantly, he does so without fear or favour. He is only answerable to one institution: the Court of Justice. Not to the Prime Minister, not to the Leader of the Opposition! Alors, c’est clair, Madame la présidente, que le MSM voulait créer, comme je l’ai dit, un monstre politique. C’était une loi régressive. Et encore une fois, je remercie le Premier ministre et l’Attorney General d’avoir pris l’initiative de redonner à notre DPP son indépendance sur toutes les poursuites criminelles. Merci, Madame la présidente.

Merci. Oui! (6.14 p.m.) Mr A. Duval (Fourth Member for Port Louis North & Montagne Longue): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that in the PMSD, we welcome the amendments being brought by the Attorney General. We welcome it because we have always, in the PMSD, fought for independence of institutions. We welcome it because under every PMSD government, there has been the working of institutions independently. We welcome it because, as rightly pointed by speakers before me, the PMSD has left its mark on this country’s destiny throughout its years of existence through the positions it has taken to strengthen our Constitution, to strengthen independence of institution and to allow for institutions to work as intended by the Constitution. Madam Speaker, there is une différence de taille however with this FCC Act and the Prosecution Commission which we tend to forget here in the debate. The hon. Attorney General has embarked on speaking on appointment, and that was the crux of the matter for the Prosecution Commission. It was not that it would exercise already the power of the DPP. It was that in the first proposal/ draft, the hon. Prime Minister would appoint directly the President of the Prosecution Commission and the Prosecution Commission had the power to direct the DPP to take or not to take an action. Refusal to abide by its directions would lead to the sacking of the DPP. That was the Prosecution Commission. That is the crux of the matter: appointment and termination of appointment. It is a missed opportunity, however, Madam Speaker. The more so as the office is vacant at the moment. For the Director General of the FCC, we have waited, but we are missing the opportunity to change the mode of appointment. In the PMSD, Madam Speaker, we have always strived to have, for institutions like the FCC and the ICAC, a mode of appointment similar, if not exact to that of the Director of Public Prosecution or the Chief Justice through the Judicial Legal Services Commission. I hope that this is the kind of amendment that the hon. Attorney General is thinking of bringing to the House. I hope in a not-too-distant future. Why, Madam Speaker? The ICAC, before the FCC, as rightly pointed out by hon. Uteem, did not have the powers to compound, did not have the powers to initiate persecutions or not to send reports to the DPP when it decided not to persecute, not to carry out a further investigation. What powers did it have? It had virtually the same powers as the FCC. But that did not stop the ICAC from putting those enquiries, those declarations that were not favourable to government dans le fond du tiroir. Since its creation, the ICAC has been like that. So, what changes now, Madam Speaker, if the appointment is virtually the same? What difference is there in the appointment between the ICAC and the FCC, one might ask? Simply, that in the FCC, it is the President who appoints, after recommendation from the Prime Minister and after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, whereas before, it was the Prime Minister appointing after consultation with Leader of the Opposition. But, Madam Speaker, we have heard it so many times. In fact, the Leader of the PMSD himself, as Leader of the Opposition, complained so many times that the consultation exercise basically amounted to merely sending a letter to the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. And then, completely ignoring any consultative views that were provided to the Prime Minister! Therefore, it is basically a rubber stamp exercise. So, Madam Speaker, that does not change. We will fill the position and that is the question – will we fill the position once again, and the change the mode of appointment like it has been for the Head of State, too late, too little? Or will we seize this opportunity and change the mode of appointment before filling in that vacancy? That is the question, I hope, the Attorney General will answer. Madam Speaker, that power then to cover up – to use the words of hon. Uteem – is still here depending on the appointment that we make. Unfortunately, the wrong person at the head of the institution will be a déjà-vu. Therefore, to ensure that the appointment process is without any doubt, that have independent, then we will, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, still raise these questions. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I hope that this is replied: will we fill the position pending the new body that is being promised? If so, are we filling that position after amendments, after the new legislation or are we contemplating to fill that position now? Madam Speaker, that is simply what I wanted to say. On the whole though, Madam Speaker, I have to say something: true it is that the PMSD in 2016 has no doubt saved the destiny of this country with the Prosecution Commission. True it is that institutions have shown, again, where one government gives too much or too much influence that virtually, nearly all institutions can be influenced. Therefore, this change that is being promised starts with security of tenure at the level of the FCC and at the level of all other institutions that have been used so often to oppress in the past.

(Interruptions)

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much. Hon. Deputy Prime Minister! (6.21 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, I won’t spend much time over what we have just heard. He is sitting next to one of the culprits. They have made of Mauritius; what they have tried to make of the DPP …

On a point of order, Madam Speaker!

He hasn’t finished …

The Deputy Prime Minister cannot treat me as culprit.

You are!

He hasn’t finished his sentence.

No, I want him to withdraw what he has just said, Madam Speaker.

You are guilty!

If we start like this… An hon. Member: Kat pat!

(Interruptions)

The person who spoke just before him, the Member, told us what crime was committed against democracy, against the DPP with the Financial Crimes Bill, what they tried to do and what they did! And now he comes and gives us lessons? Shame on him, Madam Speaker! Shame! An hon. Member: Shame! Shame!

Now, let us get to more serious things.

Madam Speaker, may I please? I raised a point of order…

Madam Speaker, I hope he won’t do that every five minutes, with your permission.

… for the Deputy Prime Minister to remove the word ‘culprit’.

Culprit, you are!

You are a culprit! You are guilty! An hon. Member: Coupable!

Devant l’histoire!

I think you will take this as your being in a party and they are talking …

No, you cannot treat somebody as culprit!

Culprit you are! L’électorat vous a condamné !

This is what you say!

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Coupable!

You are a culprit! So, Madam Speaker, I will get to more …

Let him …

… of the happy hour.

Madam Speaker, if I may on a point of order! It is clear in the Standing Orders that we may not comment on the conduct or character of a Member without bringing a substantive motion. Therefore, I think this will be the proper course of action, especially since they have 64 Members!

Everybody speaking here has been condemning what you have done as a government in the case of MSM, and as a culprit with that government until the last general elections.

You cannot use these words.

So, Madam Speaker, I will do away, hoping that they will walk out. But please don’t order them out; it is not worth it.

(Interruptions)

You are making it very difficult for me, all of you.

Let me get to more serious things, Madam Speaker…

You are making it very difficult for me. (At this stage, hon. Lesjongard left the Chamber)

Ale, ale, ale!

(Interruptions)

Pa kapav tande!

(Interruptions)

Madam Speaker, … … (Expunged following the Announcement of Madam Speaker at the Sitting of Friday 28.02.25)

Madam Speaker!

You are staying?

(Interruptions)

You want there to be no Opposition?

Non, non ! There is one behind you! Madam Speaker, let me get to more serious things.

… consolidating democracy!

Madam Speaker, this Government, our Government, has a very, very ambitious democratic agenda. As you know, Madam Speaker, we mean to make of Mauritius une démocratie exemplaire, and that is what we are doing today, and we will keep on doing. We want to make of Mauritius une démocratie exemplaire après dix ans de viol et de crime contre la démocratie. C’est notre but et faire de l’île Maurice une démocratie exemplaire, cela veut dire quoi ? Je ne parlerai pas trop longuement là-dessus. C’est faire quoi ? C’est d’abord rendre au parlement toute sa dignité et tout son rôle et c’est déjà fait, pas complétement, nous avons encore beaucoup à faire. Mais déjà ce que nous avons fait pour rendre au poste de Speaker, au parlement, ses lettres de noblesse, c’est extraordinaire. Ensuite, la MBC, c’est déjà fait mais nous avons encore beaucoup à faire. Mais, si on prend la peine de regarder la MBC, après dix ans de propagande quotidienne, nous allons dans la bonne direction. Faire de l’île Maurice une démocratie exemplaire, c’est faire les élections régionales et mettre dans la constitution la démocratie régionale. Et là aussi, c’est déjà commencé ; les élections municipales sont derrière la porte et nous continuerons dans cette direction, Madam Speaker. Faire de l’île Maurice une démocratie exemplaire c’est réussir une bonne réforme électorale que nous réussirons cette fois après avoir essayé, dans un passé pas trop lointain, le Premier ministre, moi-même, et tous ceux qui comprennent quelque chose à la démocratie. Faire de l’île Maurice une démocratie exemplaire, c’est de venir de l’avant avec un Protection of Information Act, que nous ferons ; c’est dans notre programme. Faire de l’île Maurice une démocratie exemplaire, c’est en finir avec les provisional charges qui ont existé jusqu’à présent et qui ont permis ce que nous savons qui s’est passé. Faire de l’île Maurice une démocratie exemplaire, c’est rendre ses pouvoirs au DPP. Nous avons dit que nous allons faire cela ; non seulement rendre ses pouvoir aujourd’hui au DPP mais consolider ses pouvoirs et je reviendrai là-dessus à la fin de mon intervention. Je peux parler encore mais faire de l’île Maurice une démocratie exemplaire pour nous c’est ne pas du bla-bla-bla comme ce que nous venons d’entendre. Nous sommes en train de faire vraiment de notre pays une démocratie exemplaire et nous sommes fiers de cela. Aujourd’hui, c’est un début. C’est un first step! Mais un first step très important : de rendre tous ses pouvoir au DPP ; c’est déjà énorme. C’est pourquoi moi aussi je salue, bien sûr c’est une décision du gouvernement pas de l’Attorney General. C’est le gouvernement à travers l’Attorney General qui a fait un exposé magistral un peu plus tôt. C’est un premier pas, mais c’est un grand pas pour faire de l’île Maurice une démocratie exemplaire. Le but de ce projet de loi est to restore the prosecutorial powers of the DPP. C’est ce que nous faisons aujourd’hui. Ce que nous allons faire dans l’avenir, je reviendrais là-dessus à la fin de mon intervention. Aujourd’hui, nous rendons au DPP tous ses pouvoirs usurpés par le MSM et ses complices jusqu’aux dernières élections. Il ne faut pas l’oublier, les crimes qui ont été commis. Aujourd’hui nous rendons à un DPP exemplaire lui aussi, tous ses pouvoirs mais, nous n’allons pas nous arrêter là. Déjà, c’est énorme, mais nous n’allons pas nous arrêter là. Nous (l’Attorney General, le gouvernement) viendrons avec un nouveau Financial Crimes Bill, à moins que ce soit remplacé par une autre loi encore plus démocratique, encore plus avant-garde que ce que nous avons jusqu’à présent mentionnée. Cela viendra ! Aujourd’hui, ils sont plus pressés que tout le monde. Ceux qui ont essayé de tuer le DPP, aujourd’hui, ils trouvent que nous n’allons pas assez vite. Enfin, il a pris son temps, mais c’est arrivé ! Happy hour! Nous viendrons avec un full Bill ou une loi encore plus démocratique, encore plus solide pour remplacer le Financial Crimes Commission Bill d’aujourd’hui. Nous avons même dit que nous allons amender la Constitution. Nous allons voir des détails au gouvernement parce qu’il y a des nuances là-dessus. Comment le faire ? Faire quoi exactement ? Mais, nous avons dit que nous allons amender la Constitution pour que les pouvoirs plus étendus du DPP soient inscrits dans la Constitution. Nous viendrons avec cela après un full discussion dans le gouvernement. Est-ce que nous viendrons avec un DPP Act ? S’il le faut, oui. C’est l’Attorney General qui nous conseillera. Est-ce que nous viendrons donc avec un full DPP Act ? Tout cela, nous le ferons, et je vous dirais franchement, Madame la présidente, qu’à chaque budget que nous avons voté depuis des années, mo disan galoupe ! Quand je vois que le Local Government Service Commission, une institution très importante, mais le Local Government Service Commission dans nos Estimates, stands alone. Ils ont leur budget, un standalone sous le Premier ministre d’une façon générale alors que le DPP tombe sous le vote de l’Attorney General ? L’Attorney General d’aujourd’hui on peut lui faire confiance, mais dans le principe même, il faut que le DPP dans les Estimates que nous lui donnions tout ce qu’il a besoin comme pouvoir, comme indépendance dans la Constitution. Si nécessaire, à travers un DPP Act, mais dans les Estimates avant tout. Nous allons voter un prochain budget, mais nous veillerons à ce que l’Office of the DPP stands alone comme une liste d’institutions qui stand alone. Donc, tout cela, nous avons dit que nous allons le faire et nous le ferons. Aujourd’hui c’est un pas, premier pas, mais un pas de géant. C’est déjà énorme. Nous allons voir bien qu’est-ce qu’il faudra mettre quand nous amenderons de façon plus poussée la loi, mais déjà c’est énorme, c’est fantastique ce que nous sommes en train de faire. J’avais envie de pleurer quand j’écoutais je crois le ministre Ramful qui citait Ivan Collendavelloo en 2001. C’était sous notre gouvernement et vraiment, il a été un ami, un ami personnel, mon avocat, un vrai démocrate qui aujourd’hui a fini comme eux, avec le MSM ? Mais, c’est triste à pleurer ! Enfin, c’est la vie, mais nous, nous sommes décidés ; le Premier ministre, moi-même, le Parti travailliste, le MMM, Rezistans ek Alternativ, Nouveaux Démocrates, nous tiendrons parole. Aujourd’hui, c’est un premier pas. Nous ferons beaucoup d’autres pas le plus rapidement possible pour faire de l’île Maurice vraiment une démocratie exemplaire. Merci, Madame la présidente.

Thank you. Hon. Prime Minister! (6.34 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, the Attorney General has been so clear and precise, and so have many orators, including the Deputy Prime Minister and others. I will try not to repeat what has been said. The Attorney General comprehensively explained the need to restore constitutional order. This is why these amendments to the Financial Crimes Commission Act are necessary until we repeal the FCC Act as announced in the Presidential Address, I think in paragraph 10. Today, what we are enacting, as the Deputy Prime Minister and others have also said, this is merely the starting point of a broad transformation. For years, our legal and investigative framework have suffered from inefficiency, political interference, and a lack of accountability. The FCC, Madam Speaker, was used as a tool for persecution of opponents of the regime as so many before me have said. We must do more and patch up the system. We must build anew. That is the first step that we are doing. The people of Mauritius expect real change; they elected us for this, and we will deliver, I can tell the House. Our goal is not simply to correct the past mistakes but to construct a modern enforcement body that operates beyond political cycles, and by that, I mean whoever comes. They will not come back, but whoever comes. It must be beyond the political cycle and effectively combat financial and organised crime. This will be our legacy. That is why, Madam Speaker, this Government will, in due course – as others have said – replace the Financial Crimes Commission Act. It will be replaced - we said that in the Presidential Address - by a National Crimes Agency, a new institution which will be independent, well equipped, professionally structured to tackle financial and serious crimes decisively. As Minister Uteem has so well explained, all those who thought that they will have immunity, they will be protected, or they belong to such a community that you cannot touch them, this will not be the case. If they commit financial crimes, I ask them to think again because we will be ruthless against those who interfere with that Agency. Building a credible investigative authority is not an easy task; it is complex. It will require careful planning and expertise with a solid legal framework. We must create an institution that people can trust, not what ICAC was. They must be able to trust them; it must be efficient, it must bear trust again, free from any external influence. No one will be allowed to do it. We will draw inspiration, Madam Speaker, from international best practices and also seek the views of those who are already involved in our criminal justice system. That is why we need this amendment. It is a first step, so that the institution respects our democratic principles until we replace it. And we need to restore, Madam Speaker, the public confidence in the institutions that we bring up, ensure that justice is pursued with rigour and impartiality. With today’s amendment, we are securing the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In fact, we are restoring what was taken away from the Director of Public Prosecutions. When did you see, Madam Speaker, a Commissioner of Police challenging the DPP in Court? It has never happened before! It just shows the mentality of the MSM. They even went to that extent. They tried to arrest the former DPP. He had to run away from his house and get protection from a Judge in Court. This is why we have to have this new National Crimes Agency, which will be empowered, as I said, to conduct enquires professionally, without any favouritism. Nobody will be allowed to intervene with them or interfere in the conduct of their investigations. They will have specialists; skilled financial investigators. I do not know whether some try not to do their job properly – we have this. They derail the enquiry, and you see the guilty goes away. This will not happen. There will be financial investigators who will know what to do. They will do the investigation. The decision will rest with the DPP. They must be separate; it cannot be together. The Agency will have full authority to investigate. The cases will be based on facts, not on personal or political considerations. On facts! Then, there will be a scrutiny at the apex by the prosecution services. So, you will get checks and balances. This is why we also want to have a prosecution service, which will be set up under the aegis of the DPP. During the past ten years, Madam Speaker, there has been unanimous condemnation of the ICAC. Unanimous! It became a politically perverse institution, and at the helm, a self- appointed monarch. To show that immoral minds know no limits, when in power, the previous regime – I find it an insult to the intelligence of Mauritians – adopted the Financial Crimes Commission Act, not only to prosecute opponents, but to stop certain investigations, as my colleague, hon. Uteem, explained so clearly. Files were closed. Angus Road is an example; he gave many examples. ICAC became paradoxically a symbol of State corruption. It violated the Constitution of Mauritius, attacking the functions of the DPP. This was a dark chapter of our history. The former DPP himself has said that the FCC was created to usurp the power of the DPP. Furthermore, with the mass surveillance that we know happened, including members of the judiciary, including everybody, in fact, the former DPP said he realises now that what was being said in his office by his own people, maybe on the phone, the Police knew! Before they went to Court, they knew. Is this what we want for this country? Then, we abolish everything! But this will change! A red line, I must say, a very red line has been crossed. This cannot be! Their minds were so corrupt that they were obsessively bent on replacing the Office of the DPP by the infamous, I think it was called Public Prosecution Commission. They appointed their own, I could say, scoundrels at the helm of all criminal prosecutions in our country. Hon. A. Duval is not here; his own father resigned. There were many other reasons probably, but that was what tipped him to resign. What people should understand is that the decision to introduce the Bill was not by itself an isolated act. If you look at it, it was a broader scheme by the MSM: trying to take the powers away from the DPP, protecting those close to the regime or those who would dare to go and speak in their ear. All this was happening. What they really did was confiscate the major institutions of the country which were supposed to uphold justice and democracy in our country. The goal of my Government is to put in place a system where those who break the law will have to face the legal consequences regardless of who they are. And certainly not a politique de vengeance as they did, where charges were brought against political opponents – I was a victim – and then, they try to concoct, fabricate evidence. Lawyers will know what it means. What a dangerous thing to do; to fabricate false evidence! I have been through this. I know what they did. Not a politique de vengeance, but true accountability. That is what we want! A system where institutions will function freely, diligently, and without any interference. When entrusted to the right individuals, our institutions will ensure that those who have breached the laws, trampled on the rights of citizens or plundered our nation will not escape justice. I can tell you, believe me, Madam Speaker, they will not escape! Our priority, Madam Speaker, is to build institutions that serve the interests of the whole nation, not one clique, one group or one community. No! The whole nation! Not political agendas, not individual ambitions, but the rule of law itself which has to prevail. This is what we are trying to do. The future National Crimes Agency will be a model of integrity and competence. Enquiries will be done, and I say again, by professionals. If ever there are leakages, like it has happened just now, as we have seen, action will be taken. There will be sanctions. Today marks the beginning of an essential reform. But we will not stop there, as the Deputy Prime Minister said very forcefully. We are committed to delivering a truly robust and transparent framework to uphold justice and combat crime. This is not just about amending laws, change a name and put another name. No! It is about shaping a system that serves all Mauritians. In this effort, Madam Speaker, I take inspiration from the words of President Mandela who wrote, and I quote – “I have walked that long road to freedom. I have tried not to falter; I have made missteps along the way. But I have discovered the secret that after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. I have taken a moment here to rest, to steal a view of the glorious vista that surrounds me, to look back at the distance I have come. But I can only rest for a moment, for with freedom, comes responsibilities, and I dare not linger, for my long walk is not ended.” Yes, we have come a long way. We have overcome many obstacles in this country. We have benefitted from the strides of giants before us. Tomorrow, younger generations - there are plenty of them here - will carry on across our bridge to the future. But, for now, Madam Speaker, there are many hills for us to climb. But we will climb them! Thank you.

Hon. Attorney General! You have got a mouthful of proposals. (6.47 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, having heard what the hon. Members of the House had to say today, it is clear that even the Opposition has nothing much to say about the very specific amendments brought about to the Financial Crimes Commission Act. Indeed, if I refer to the speech of the hon. Leader of the Opposition when the FCC Act was put to Parliament last year, he rightly stated, the learned Leader of the Opposition at the time, that if this law needs to be repealed - because it would mean the destruction of the Office of the DPP and then of our civil liberties. In that respect, Madam Speaker, he said this Bill is an evil precedent. So, I was a bit surprised to hear hon. A. Duval today make reference to the fact that this Bill, in fact, does not put an end to the possibility of a cover-up. I will come to that in a minute. On a lighter tone, having heard my learned colleagues of the House speak, since very young I have been dead scared of monsters, I don’t like them, especially those created for a specific purpose, here for the dismantling of the prosecutorial powers of the DPP. That is what they wanted to do. And let us be clear, the FCC Act, as the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have said very clearly, will be repealed in due course. Let me reassure my learned friend A. Duval that he is absolutely wrong when he says the power to cover-up still exists. It is not true, and I will explain why. You see, if you go through the many amendments brought in this Bill, you will have seen that the whole purpose of this Act is to restore the prosecutorial powers of the DPP in relation to the functions and powers of the FCC, that is, that when there is the possibility of stopping prosecution, the DPP will have his way, he will know what to do and what not to do. Now, of course, these amendments do not go the whole way because we wanted to be very specific in order to ensure that these restrictive amendments today will be only and only a first step, but as the Deputy Prime Minister rightly said, it is indeed a big step in the right direction. We shall restore democracy, make no mistake, as quickly and as swiftly as possible. So, I note that the amendments per se, the specific amendments have not been attacked in any way. Indeed, there cannot be any attack as the restoration of public confidence by these amendments is paramount, and this Government will not flinch and has gone as quickly and swiftly as possible to bring these first amendments to restore democracy and to make sure that the prosecutorial powers of the DPP are restored. In fine, what we are doing today is simply restoring the powers of the DPP as provided in the Constitution, as all the Members of this House have stated today. The new law will come in the meantime, but, for now, we have plugged the loophole which would have allowed the FCC, if it was so minded, to stop an investigation which ought to be prosecuted. As the Prime Minister concluded this afternoon, this is the start of a long road that will lead to greater democracy, which our nation will be proud of and will be, of course, free to live in. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Hon. Attorney General, you have to commend the Bill again to the House. Just commend the Bill to the House.

I now commend the Bill to the House.

Then I need it to be seconded. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) The Financial Crimes Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. I of 2025) was considered and agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Financial Crimes Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. I of 2025) was read a third time and passed.