Madam Speaker, I am informed by the Financial Crimes Commission that Mr Navin Beekarry, former Director General of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, proceeded to London on three occasions in connection with the hearing of the Privy Council for the MedPoint case. In 2018, Mr Beekarry proceeded twice to London from 28 September to 07 October and from 21 to 28 November. As for 2019, he travelled to London from the 12 to 20 January. These missions were approved by the Board of the then ICAC, which Board was chaired by Mr Beekarry himself. So, in accordance with section 19(3)(b) of the repealed Prevention of Corruption Act, he did not recuse himself, I must say, and when the decision on his mission was being discussed and subsequently approved by the Board, he was present there. This is a blatant case of conflict of interest. What was equally contemptible was his presence at the Privy Council despite the fact that the Privy Council, through correspondence dated 13 December 2018, Lord Kerr directed that ICAC’s application to make oral submission be refused. He was not given permission. In spite of that, he proceeded on mission to London, accompanied by Mr Roopchand, Acting Chief Legal Adviser and Mr Sohawon, Attorney at Law.

21 Madam Speaker, what should also be recalled is that Mr Navin Beekarry changed his original stand, which was in favour of prosecution in the MedPoint case. He changed his opinion a few days before the sitting of the Privy Council. The total costs, Madam Speaker, of the missions undertaken by Mr Beekarry, Mr Roopchand and Mr Sohawon for the hearing of the Privy Council in connection with the MedPoint case amounted to Rs1,373,990.02 – for a mission that the Privy Council said that they will not be able to do oral submissions.

Okay, now it is hon. Second Member for Grand’Baie and Poudre d'Or! ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD – HEAD OFFICE BUILDING – LEASE AGREEMENT