Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am informed by the Road Development Authority that the Terre Rouge/Verdun Link Road, now known as the Motorway M3 Road was initiated by the RDA on 18 February 2010 and the project was completed on 30 November 2013. The cost of the initial project, comprising a total of 15.7 kilometres of dual carriageway was Rs2.162 billion inclusive of VAT. The final price was Rs2.896 billion inclusive of VAT, taking into consideration additional works, dispute settlement costs, remedial works, prolongation costs and price adjustments. The contractor on the project was Colas (Maurice), Colas (Madagascar) Terre Rouge/Verdun/Trianon Link Road Joint-Venture. Consultancy fees paid to the consultant Egis BCEOM International stands at Rs121 million inclusive of VAT.

82 I am informed that during the implementation of the project, several landslides occurred during the period 2010 to 2013 in four specific zones of cuts which prevented the completion of the project over a length of about 2.7 kilometres along the southbound carriageway towards Ripailles. I am informed that several attempts were made to reprofile the slopes at that time but given the complexity of the terrain, unusual geotechnical conditions and the high-water table, the works in whole could not be completed successfully. Hence, the decision of the RDA to allocate a separate contract for the treatment of the landslides in the best interest of the works. The contract was accordingly awarded to Sinohydro Corporation Limited for an initial amount of Rs762 million, inclusive of VAT. The commencement date was 3 October 2014 and the contract period was 457 calendar days, that is, up to 2 January 2016. Additional works were carried out for an increase in the scope of works due to redesign of slopes, installation of rock nets, extension of time with cost and repair of landslide, bringing the contract amount to Rs924 million, inclusive of VAT. Consultancy fees paid to the consultant GET2 on the project stands at Rs9.8 million, inclusive of VAT. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am further informed that after the expiry of the defects liability period, on 19 January 2015, cracks reappeared on the finished road level of the Terre Rouge/Verdun Link Road near Valton roundabout. The transverse cracks propagated very swiftly and the road eventually subsided due to a failure of the embankment. Several consultants were appointed by the RDA to determine the cause of the failure and to propose adequate solutions and provide assistance during supervision of the works, namely – (i) ARQ Consulting Engineers South Africa for an amount of Rs4.1 million inclusive of VAT; (ii) Korea Expressway Corporation for an amount of Rs2.7 million inclusive of VAT, and (iii) Water Research Contractor for the boreholes drilling for an amount of Rs4.3 million inclusive of VAT. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been made aware that at that specific time, the professional indemnity insurance of the consultant Egis BCEOM International was still valid till December 2015. Despite that, for some obscure reasons, at that material time, the then Government did not explore any avenue legal or otherwise to recoup the cost of repairs from the consultant or the contractor. It should be highlighted that with a view to maintaining traffic on the Terre Rouge/Verdun Link Road at that point in time, a bypass road of 485 metres had to be constructed to avoid the damaged section. The works were allocated to

83 Gamma Construction Limited on 02 March 2015 for an amount of Rs18.3 million inclusive of VAT. The works started on 03 March 2015 and were completed on 06 April 2015. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, based on the solution proposed by KEC, namely a horizontal replacement method, the RDA awarded a contract for repair to embankment on Motorway M3 at Ripailles project through Transinvest Construction, previously known as Colas, one of the party to whom the initial contract was awarded as a joint-venture for Rs326.1 million inclusive of VAT. However, during the period mid-December 2017 to mid-January 2018, after frequent rainfall events, there were major cracks and slope movements, landslides on the mountain side, which affected the ongoing works. Subsequently, the contractor based on the advice of a leading expert in geotechnical engineering, proposed to undertake piles stabilisation to prevent the sliding as an additional measure. A consultancy contract was then awarded to CEREMA from France for an amount of Rs3.2 million inclusive of VAT which is specialised in such type of works, to undertake the reinforcement designs and provide assistance during supervision of the works. The piling works were awarded in September 2018 to Sinohydro Corporation (Mauritius) Limited for the sum of Rs142.4 million inclusive of VAT plus a provisional sum of Rs11.5 million, inclusive of VAT for unforeseen condition. The order to commence was issued on 22 October 2018 and all piling works were completed on 18 February 2019. The whole repair works were substantially completed on 19 July 2019. It is also worth to note that in January 2018, there was a collapse on the left-hand side northbound, approximately 475 metres from the Ripailles roundabout opposite one of the previously affected sections. In order to stabilise this section, a contract for the design and build turnkey was awarded to Sinohydro Corporation for the sum of Rs133.4 million, inclusive of VAT. The works started on 18 February 2019 and were completed on 16 September 2019. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a project which initially started on 18 February 2010, to be completed on 30 November 2013 for a sum of Rs2.283 billion has ended up to be completed in September 2019, for a total sum of Rs5.238 billion, more than twice its projected initial cost, depicting the vulnerable condition arising out of climatic change, but at the same time, highlighting the weaknesses of non-timely actions which could have been taken in 2015. As regards part (b)(i) and (ii), the question does not arise.

Okay. Time is over!

84 The Table has been advised that the following PQs have been withdrawn – B/700, B/702, B/703, B/704, B/706, B/707, B/708. Motion! MOTION SUSPENSION OF S.O. 10(2)

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that all the business on today’s Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order 10. Dr. Boolell rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

I suspend the Sitting for half an hour. At 4.03 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 4.32 p.m. with the Deputy Speaker in the Chair.

Please be seated! Hon. Prime Minister! PUBLIC BILL First reading On motion made and seconded, the Financial Crimes Commission (Amendment) Bill (No. XVI of 2025) was read a first time. Second Reading THE FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. XVI OF 2025) Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move that the Financial Crimes Commission (Amendment) Bill (No. XVI of 2025) be read a second time.

85 Let me start, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by reminding the House that, as stated in the Government Programme of 2025-2029, because of the serious challenges to rule of law and the role of the enforcement agencies, Government said that we will take measures to deal more effectively with crimes generally, but also including financial crimes. This Government has repeatedly pledged that we shall leave no stone unturned in our commitment to strengthening the Mauritius investigating capabilities, particularly against financial crimes. Before I come to the provisions of the Bill, I want to say a few words by way of introduction. After ten years of connivance by the previous government, when the scourge of drug trafficking was allowed to seep deep into the fabric of our society, the need for our law enforcement agencies to work more effectively together has never been greater. Yet, the whole nation knows why was the Financial Crimes Commission Act passed. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it was not passed to intensify the combat against the money launderers, the fraudsters, the corrupt or the gangsters who have infected public life in our country. It was passed to protect or pursue those whom the last government ordained. Some people were completely protected; some people were harassed. That is why this Financial Crimes Commission Act was passed. A good example is why else would they exclude the vital role of the constitutionally independent Director of Public Prosecutions, an offence against which the last government shamefully mounted, attack after attack after attack! The Financial Crimes Commission was not created to work hand in hand with the other agencies, but to be controlled by one political party in its own interest. That is why it was passed. Contrary to them, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we, in this Government, are introducing new legislation to rebuild the capacity of our law enforcement agencies to act effectively, independently and objectively. As the President’s Speech has already foreshadowed, we intend to establish a new Mauritius National Crime Agency. As we embark upon this essential amendment today, it is critical to remember its overarching aim, which is empowering our legislative authorities and eventually transitioning

86 towards establishing a comprehensive national crime agency, which would be modelled on the international best practices, notably in the United Kingdom. In this regard, Mauritius has already started to work closely with the British authorities. This is provided in our strategic partnership framework established earlier this year in the context of the Chagos Treaty. This is already there. The United Kingdom has indicated its willingness to provide substantial support for the establishment of our National Crime Agency, including providing expert, technical and strategic advice, legislative guidance and organisational expertise. This collaboration will significantly enhance our capabilities to effectively tackle financial crimes and also other civil crimes. The possibility of joint investigations, as outlined in the newly introduced Section 58A of the Financial Crimes Commission Act, marks a significant step towards this vision. This joint endeavour is being advised by a team of international expert investigators, embedded with the Police, who are helping to bring new techniques and approaches and sharper focus, urgency and coherence to important investigations. Experience has shown, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that it is not always desirable or efficient to separate responsibility for the investigation of offences artificially. It is often the case that offences for investigation, of which the Police are responsible, are also closely connected to financial crimes, which at the moment, fall under the responsibility of the Financial Crimes Commission. So, these offences are being investigated separately; the FCC on one side and the Police on the other. In such cases, it is obviously desirable and common sense that the two agencies, the Mauritius Police Force and the Financial Crimes Commission, should work closely together, and in certain circumstances, should have the capability of mounting a joint investigation into particular suspects or criminal groups. These criminals, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, do not look at the statute. They do not see which compartments are going to affect them. The fragmented approach between the Financial Crimes Commission and the Police has often resulted in unnecessary duplication. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when there are duplications, you will find that there are leakages as well. Somebody has spoken to somebody else. Unnecessary duplication, but more importantly, delays in investigations and ultimately prosecutions.

87 At this stage, we urgently need to reinforce the capabilities of the Police and the FCC to provide a workable framework in order not to jeopardise enquiries which are ongoing or become necessary. Criminal networks exploit these procedural gaps and this leads to the undermining of public trust and confidence in our system. With the proposed amendments, we will ensure clearer, structured cooperation in three distinct and practical scenarios – (i) In the course of an ongoing police investigation, should evidence arise indicating financial crimes, which often does, that normally would fall within the remits of the Financial Crimes Commission. So, you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, two separate investigations are started. The Police now has a clear mandate not only to inform the Commission but also to directly collaborate with them. This will ensure a swift and coordinated response from the very beginning, maximising the potential for successful prosecutions. (ii) In the instances where the Financial Crimes Commission is already investigating an offense and the Police, in the meantime, uncover related criminal activities, joint operations can now be promptly initiated upon request. This coordinated approach ensures a comprehensive, consistent, and unified investigative efforts across the different law enforcement bodies. (iii) The third scenario provides, what we can call, flexibility. Should both the Police and the Financial Crimes Commission agree that a joint investigation would be beneficial, they will be empowered to initiate a coordinated effort, pooling resources, pooling intelligence and special skills. Such fluid cooperation will greatly enhance the effectiveness, speed and depth of investigative processes, leaving no space for the criminals to evade justice. These interim measures, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, pending the fully-fledged NCA Bill do not in any way impede the work of the FCC or the work of the Police. They create a possible collaboration to ensure a more efficient process, given the ramification that can exist in large scale enquiries. Not only has the Commissioner of Police the obligation to inform the Commission but then the onus is squarely on the two investigative agencies to work together.

88 This amendment is intended to do just that. It is carefully designed to promote cooperation and where necessary joint investigations between the Police and the Financial Crimes Commission while respecting the current statutory independence of each agency. And, I must explain some of the technical details of the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for example, clause 4 introduces a new section 58A (1) – I will move for an amendment later on – into the Financial Crimes Commission Act. Clause 2 makes section 56 of the Act which gives exclusive power to the Financial Crimes Commission to investigate all money laundering, fraud and corruption be subject to the new section 58A, in other words, for the collaboration between the two. It envisages three possible separate situations – (i) Clause 58A (1) deals with the situation in which the Police are investigating or they intend to investigate an offense under the general Criminal Code or the Penal Provisions. While they are doing this, they may become aware that the offense they are investigating or intend to investigate, is connected to an offense of fraud or corruption under the Financial Crimes Commission which is not already under investigation by the FCC. (ii) The new section 58A (2) requires the Police to keep the FCC fully informed of the progress of the investigation and provides that the FCC may require the Police to investigate the fraud and corruption offense jointly. However, clause 58A also provides that the Police must serve notice – he cannot just do so – on the FCC that they are doing this. The new section 58A (2) requires the Police to keep the FCC fully informed of the progress of the investigation and provides that the FCC may require the Police to investigate jointly with them the offense of fraud or corruption. Nothing, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in section 58A (2) prevents the FCC from doing so at any time during the Police investigation. That is deliberate because there may well be cases in which the FCC only becomes aware at some later stage that circumstances are there that make it desirable that it should also be involved because they are cases of financial crimes. (iii) Section 58A (3) provides for the second situation, that is, the Police are investigating or intend to investigate an offence which appears to them to be

89 related to an offence of fraud or corruption under the FCC Act which is already under investigation by the FCC. In those circumstances, the Commissioner of Police may require the FCC to investigate the fraud or corruption offence jointly with the Police. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in each of these two cases, the amendment gives both the Police and the FCC the right to opt for a joint investigation without the need for actual consent. They can do so if they feel there is a need for it. This reflects the fact that in each of these two cases, both law enforcement agencies will have a direct and substantial interest in the investigation. It might justifiably be that they will be impeded in their statutory functions, obviously, if related enquiries were to be pursued separately. However, as I said earlier, they are not obliged to require such a joint investigation. The proposed amendments will open the possibility that they may choose to ensure appropriate coordination between the enquiries by informal consultation and cooperation under the new section 58 (5) and they agree for a joint investigation. As I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is only if either agency believes that from its perspective a joint investigation will be necessary and advantageous, and if the other disagree, that it would be necessary to exercise the statutory options the new section 58A (1) and (4) create. Whether or not the Police or the FCC reach that conclusion will depend, obviously, on the circumstances and individual facts of the relevant enquiries. However, if one or the other agencies believes strongly that only closed and detailed joint planning and decision-making implied by a joint investigation will successfully lead to a resolution of the enquiry, it could then insist, only then, that a joint investigation be undertaken. In those circumstances, clause 58A (4) requires each to put in place suitable arrangements for the efficient joint conduct on the investigation. This reflects the fact that in each of those cases, both law enforcement agencies will have a direct and substantial interest in the investigation which are very often, not only serious but very complex enquiries. However, they are not obliged, as I said earlier, for a joint investigation. The proposed amendments leave open that possibility, as I explained.

90 Finally, as I already intimated, clause 58A (5) provides for the first situation. It gives to the Commissioner of Police and the Financial Crimes Commission the legal basis to agree for joint investigations when it is plainly of mutual benefit and for the public interest. At present, there is no expressed legal basis for formal joint investigation between the Police and the FCC. The Government believes it is desirable that the law in such important matter should be expressed and unambiguous. Indeed, it is reasonably to be expected and very much to be hoped that the new section 58A (5) will be the normal route to which joint investigations are established. This Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is intended to promote greater and more efficient collaboration and ensure the close and cooperative functioning of the two most important law enforcement and investigative agencies in Mauritius. This will be an important preparatory step for the formation of the Mauritius National Crime Agency and I cannot emphasise the seminal importance for Mauritius of making a success for that new institution. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these amendments are fundamental to our unwavering commitment to transparent government, efficient administration of justice and securing a safe and prosperous future for Mauritius. They formed, in fact, the very bed rock upon which we will build our future National Crime Agency, ensuring Mauritius remains vigilant and resilient against financial and organised crime. For the time being, it enhances cooperation between the two investigative agencies which will eventually report to the Director of Public Prosecutions, without in any way hindering or sidelining one or the other agency. It is, in fact, the DPP who will decide whether to prosecute or not to prosecute. For these reasons, I strongly commend the Bill to the House. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded.

Hon. Leader of the Opposition! (4.52 p.m.) The Leader of the Opposition (Mr G. Lesjongard): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

91 M. le président, j’ai entre mes mains la liste des orateurs et l’ordre des intervenants pour le FCC Bill. Je constate, malheureusement, qu’on déroge d’une des traditions établies pour les débats dans cette Chambre.

(Interruptions)

Hon. Leader of the Opposition…

C’est-à-dire, …

Hon. Leader of the Opposition, please, let me. Your name is on the list to address the Bill before the House. I have before me the list of those who are going to intervene. And we are going to go according to that list. It has always been the tradition of this House for the Chair to go according to the list which is submitted to him/her. The Chair does not go behind the scene to see how this list is prepared or how we have come to that list. We will go according to that list. I will not allow any intervention or any remark made to that list. If you have any queries, you know, you are a seasoned politician, you have been Deputy Speaker, your colleague has been Speaker and you know what to do. So, we will proceed with the list.

May I please, raise to the attention of the Chair, on a point of order …

Which order, which point of order?

Yes, the point of order concerns the rules of debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with regard to …

Which point of order?

On the rules of debate. Look at …

Which point of order?

You have to check the rules of debate.

No! No!

The point of order is as follows, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, …

(Interruptions)

No! No!

92 Hon. A. Duval, please! I have already said…

May I please raise the attention …

Yes, the rules of debates, I have to catch the eye. I know the rules of debate.

I am glad you know it!

Sit down, please!

May I raise…

Can I… I am on my feet now!

(Interruptions)

Please sit down!

Sit down! An hon. Member: Asize do. Malelve!

(Interruptions)

Malelve!

The rules of debate is about catching the eyes of an intervener …

(Interruptions)

Ey ale do ta! Kisenla to pe fer per isi twa?

The rules of debate is about catching the eyes of an intervener.

Apart to lavwa narien pa marser ar twa!

You have been here; I have been here for more than 20 years now. It has always been the tradition that a list is submitted to the Chair and we go according to the list. We have a Chief Whip from the Government and we have a Whip for the Opposition. It is for you to take your responsibility. The list is before me and we are going to go according to that list. Thank you. Hon. Leader of the Opposition, you have …

93

May I raise a Point of Order, please?

No! I am not going …

Can I, please…

(Interruptions)

May I …

I am on my feet.

(Interruptions)

I am on my feet.

Malelve!

Please!

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Met li dehor!

(Interruptions)

I wish to …

I am on my feet! Let me say…

(Interruptions)

Sit down!

Sit down!

Eta ale do ta!

I am on my feet.

(Interruptions)

Order! Order! We are …

Al to lakaz do ta! To vinn isi pou fou dezord ! Sa mem to travay!

(Interruption)

No, cross talking, please. I am on my feet!

94 We are going to address the Bill before the House as per the list submitted to me. I am not going to entertain any Standing Order or any remarks …

But you are being arbitrary!

… or any remarks made on the list. If you feel I am arbitrary, you know what to do. You have been a Speaker, if you want to challenge my ruling, you know what to do. Okay?

(Interruptions)

Now, let’s go back to the Bill. Hon. Leader of the Opposition, you have the floor!

I will raise it when I will speak.

M. le président, je voulais faire le point, parce que dois-je comprendre que c’est mon collègue…

Hon. Leader of the Opposition…

(Interruptions)

Laissez-moi terminer. Dois-je comprendre que c’est mon collègue, l’honorable Adrien Duval, qui aura à réfuter les arguments du leader de l’opposition…

I don’t know what he is going to …

… à l’intérieur de cette Chambre ?

(Interruptions)

He does not have to refute; he has to address on the Bill.

(Interruptions)

If he wants to address on the Bill, he addresses on the Bill, and you are being invited now, hon. Leader of the Opposition…

C’est pourquoi, je dis qu’on déroge d’une des traditions les plus importantes lors des débats à l’intérieur de cette Chambre, M. le président.

(Interruptions)

Okay, let’s come to the Bill.

(Interruptions)

95 Order! Order! Let’s listen to the Bill.

Tras traser Joe! Tras traser!

Wai ! Mari approfondissement demokrasi!

(Interruptions)

Mo pou al explike la!

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, allow me to begin my intervention by referring and the hon. Prime Minister made reference to paragraph 10 of the Government Programme 2025-2029 and I quote – “In view of the recent serious challenges to the rule of law and the role of enforcement agencies, Government will take immediate measures to ensure that they operate in a totally independent and transparent manner.” It goes on – “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. The agency will not impinge on the prosecutorial powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) but will ensure that an investigation is carried out independently, objectively and effectively.” M. le président, sept mois après, le Financial Crimes Commission Act, est toujours vivant et rien à l’horizon concernant cette nouvelle agence, c’est-à-dire, le National Crime Agency, alors que dans le discours programme, le gouvernement parlait des immediate measures, mais non-seulement des immediate measures mais aussi that investigations are carried out independently and objectively. M. le président, avec cet amendement à l’ordre du jour, l’indépendance de la Financial Crimes Commission est grandement remise en question à travers l’ingérence de la police et le pouvoir du Commissaire de police sur les affaires de la FCC.

To pe badiner la?

Ce n’est plus la FCC qui décidera…

(Interruptions)

To kone ki to pe dir la?

96

… s’il faut ouvrir une enquête ou pas, ce sera à la police.

Pravind kin dire twa sa?

(Interruptions)

Order ! Order!. Let’s listen to him.

Et pas plus tard, M. le président, que le 19 juin, le Premier ministre en répondant à une PNQ élaborée sur les mesures qui sont mises en place par le gouvernement pour réduire les problèmes liés à la situation de law and order dans le pays et il a affirmé ceci, je cite – “We have already started implementing those measures. “We are setting up, as I mentioned – I think I did mention – the National Crime Agency. It is not just an Agency. It will comprise specialist divisions with skilled investigators, including foreign ones. At the same time, the National Prosecution Service would be under the responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions.” Encore une fois, un engagement du Premier ministre, mais rien. L’honorable Premier ministre va plus loin en ce qui concerne la police et le bureau du DPP. Il ajoute qu’il faut éviter le clash entre le Commissaire de police et le DPP. Voilà ce qu’’il avait dit, M. le président, – “You remember the clash between the Commissioner of Police and the DPP. We will stop this. Now, with the prosecution service as it is, it is the DPP who will decide who will be prosecuted. Not the Police! The Police can give their views, but it will be for the DPP to decide who will be prosecuted or not prosecuted.” Mais aujourd’hui, on nous présente un projet de loi qui va créer, M. le président, une crise institutionnelle entre la police et la FCC. An hon. Member : Li pann comprend narien.

On a voté il y a quelque temps de cela, le Public Inquiry Act et nous savions tous que la Commission d’’enquête qui existait avant était indépendante. Mais, aujourd’hui, on nous propose une mainmise de la police sure une autre institution indépendante en l’occurrence la FCC, M. le président.

Beekarry ti independan ein! An. hon. Member: Kan to ti pe rod pran DPP!

97

Beekarry ti independan…

Order! Order!

Mon deuxième point, M. le président, est par rapport à l’effectif de la FCC et de la police. Ces derniers temps, il y a eu plusieurs démissions au sein de la FCC. C’est vrai qu’il y a un manque de ressources humaines, mais la police aussi est déjà surmenée par la situation de law and order dans le pays. Elle est aussi en manque d’effectifs. Lors d’un PMQT, c’est-à- dire le 4 mars dernier, l’honorable Premier ministre avait fait comprendre à la Chambre qu’il existe plus de 3,000 postes vacants au sein de la force policière. Alors, nous nous retrouvons avec des institutions qui ont des problèmes de ressources humaines et on leur donne des responsabilités additionnelles. Mon autre point, M. le président, est par rapport aux qualifications des agents de police pour entamer des enquêtes liées au blanchiment d’argent ou de fraude. M. le président, ce projet de loi est le deuxième amendement proposé à la Financial Crimes Commission Act sous ce gouvernement. Un certain amateurisme de la part de ce gouvernement, M. le président. De mémoire, je n’ai pas connaissance de deux amendements apportés à une même législation en huit mois. Le comble, M. le président, est qu’au niveau de la FCC, on a toujours un Officer-in-Charge. M. le président, lors des débats sur la FCC Act en 2023, c’est-à-dire en décembre 2023, l’actuel Deputy Prime Minister avait parlé des décisions fondamentales à être prises pour le bon fonctionnement de cette institution et que la nomination du directeur général de la FCC en faisait partie de ces décisions fondamentales. Il me semble, aujourd’hui, M. le président, que ce n’est plus le cas. Le présent projet de loi propose tout simplement des enquêtes conjointes entre la FCC et la police. M. le président, c’est du déjà-vu. Comme après les élections de 2005, quand l’actuel Premier ministre avait présenté deux amendements à la POCA et avait revu la façon de nommer le directeur de l’ICAC pour avoir une mainmise sur cette institution. Aujourd’hui, 20 ans plus tard, la FCC est amendée dans les mêmes conditions. À travers ces amendements, on nous propose cette fois-ci de permettre au commissaire de police, le bras droit du Premier ministre, de s’immiscer dans les affaires d’une institution indépendante avec pour seule et unique mission de combattre la corruption.

98 Je dois dire que l’honorable Ritesh Ramful nous avait déjà annoncé la couleur en 2023 lors de son intervention. Je cite ce qu’il avait dit – « Faites attention. Les rênes de ce monstre sont à présent entre les mains de ce gouvernement. Dieu saura ce qui se passera quand ce monstre changera de maître! » Maintenant, on sait que le nouveau maître de la FCC sera le commissaire de police. Le commissaire de police, selon la clause 58A (1) de ce projet de loi, aura le privilège, et je pèse mes mots. M. le président, le privilège… An hon. Member: Démagogie !

…le privilège de démarrer une enquête sous la FCC Act. Est-ce que vous vous rendez compte de ce que vous êtes en train de faire ? Donc, M. le président, demain si l’institution censée être indépendante qui est la FCC, qui a trouvé qu’il n’y a pas de lieu d’avoir une enquête sur un cas en particulier parce qu’il ne semble pas y avoir d’offense commise, le commissaire de police, lui, peut démarrer son enquête et procéder à des arrestations et mettre des charges provisoires comme bon lui semble. Il aura tout simplement qu’à notifier la commission. Dire que l’honorable Mohamed nous sortait cette perle en 2023, je cite – “I say that no Labour Party government is entitled to have a law like that! No MMM government, no alliance government should have this despicable Act in their hands! It should be thrown out! It should be kicked out! And we undertake to throw it out!” Et bien non, M. le président! Qu’est-ce qu’on fait aujourd’hui ? On l’améliore. Maintenant, le comble, c’est que les amendements à la FCC Act ouvrent une grande porte sur les dérives. Ne vous fiez pas aux autres sections qui suivent. C’est simplement du eyewash. Le plus important, c’est de permettre au commissaire de police de faire ses propres enquêtes sur des cas de corruption alléguée. C’est extrêmement dangereux. Après le démantèlement, M. le président, de l’État-providence, nous assistons, aujourd’hui, au démantèlement de la lutte contre la corruption et de faire…

(Interruptions)

de la FCC…

Order! Order!

99

…un instrument politique.

Order!

Maintenant, … An hon. Member: Fer komik!

Maintenant, on peut parler de ‘monstre’, l’honorable Uteem.

Tu me déçois !

Dommage que vous n’alliez pas respecter votre engagement pris dans cette même Assemblée en 2023 pour révoquer cette loi. Vous aviez tous sans exception fait le procès de cette loi. Ce gouvernement, M. le président, avait même annoncé, je l’ai dit un peu plus tôt, une nouvelle institution. Mais on l’attend venir. Cette annonce, M. le président, a créé un sentiment d’incertitude à la FCC. Depuis, ils sont plusieurs à avoir démissionné ou pris leur retraite anticipée. Ces officiers sont sous pression. Voilà que désormais, ils auront un nouveau chef en la personne du commissaire de police, l’homme de confiance de l’actuel Premier ministre. Cet amendement, M. le président, est dangereux. Je ne comprends pas comment certains au sein de l’alliance…

(Interruptions)

Pann konpran nanye. Nanye to pann konpran!

…gouvernementale vont s’associer à ce projet de loi. Pourquoi un tel amendement, M. le président ? Alors que la FCC va être remplacée par une autre institution. Malheureusement, ce gouvernement prend des décisions catastrophiques et ce projet de loi en fait partie. J’en ai terminé, M. le président.

Thank you.

Au moins !

Quiet!

Bizin reste ziska la fin la.

100

Hon. A. Duval! (5.08 p.m.) Mr A. Duval (Fourth Member for Port-Louis North & Montagne Longue): Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me say that it is the first time that a debate is done wherein in Parliament, Members are being requested to speak after one another…

Hon. Member, do no try to…

(Interruptions)

…when it ought to have been…

Do not try to have a…

(Interruptions)

Do not try to have a second bite!

(Interruptions)

Asize do!

Sit down! Sit down!

(Interruptions)

Do not try to come back to that issue. Do not try to have a second bite of the cherry. I have already given my ruling. If you want to intervene on this Bill, you intervene. If you do not want to, I am going to call the next orator.

Dir pass.

So, you have the floor for the next 15 minutes.

(Interruptions)

Let me say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when it came to voting amendments to the FCC Bill earlier this year, I was then allowed to refute hon. Ministers.

Address on this Bill!

(Interruptions)

To speak after the ... The second thing.

(Interruptions)

101

Come to this Bill! Come to this Bill!

No, I am just saying. I will table it. Same for all the other interventions, The Special Allowance Bill, etc., that was not the practise.

No!

(Interruptions)

The people…

(Interruptions)

You are again coming back to the same issue!

(Interruptions)

The people will draw their conclusion.

Hon. A. Duval!

(Interruptions)

Hon. A. Duval, sit down! Sit down!

Asize!

Eta! Ey ale do ta!

(Interruptions)

Asize!

(Interruptions)

Asize!

(Interruptions)

Order! Order! Sit down!

(Interruptions)

Order! Order! Order!

Li pena oken respe!

I am making a last appeal to you. You stand up and you address the House on this Bill.

Li pa pe respekte...

102

If you do not want to address on this Bill, I have no alternative… An hon. Member: Dir pass.

…but I will call the next orator according to that list.

Okay, I will take that to other places. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the first issue lies in the manner in which this amendment is being brought… An hon. Member: Koz la verite, dir lies.

…the manner in which this amendment is being brought. First question, why was the Parliament Committee on the FCC not apprised of these amendments? When we know that the law provides at Section 129 of the FCC Act subsection (1) and Section 131 (1)(e) subsection (iii) that matters pertaining to reforms ought to be brought before the committee. This was the case when the amendments were brought to introduce the threshold of Rs500,000 or less which are to be now exclusively undertaken by the Commissioner of Police. But that was not the case for these new amendments. So, the first question – why have we bypassed the Parliamentary Committee? Why have we bypassed the law which provides that it ought to have been brought there first, ought to then have been made by a report, recommendations to this Parliament, to Government to bring legislative amendments. So, we take note that the Parliamentary Committee now has become, well, chacun tirera leur conclusion de ce que le comité Parlementaire qui régit la FCC est devenu, une farce ! Deuxièument, why the urgency? Why bring an amendment under a Certificate of Urgency which has only been introduced to Cabinet on Friday, and therefore, has been given to hon. Members a few days ago and we are being asked now to ponder on this urgent matter? An urgent matter – this bring me to the core of the issue – which was not so urgent. Firstly, at the time of the Budget and at the time of bringing the other amendments which I spoke about the introduction of a threshold to unclogged. I will come to it. The first thing first. The spirit of the law behind the FCC; what was the spirit of the law? It was to have an apex investigative body that had all the means, all the personnel, all the equipment, the surveillance equipment, the special powers under the FCC Act to carry out

103 surveillance, to gather information, to call in investigative bodies, in fact, to co-opt people on its various boards, co-opt people from outside to have specialised knowledge on, for example, financial crimes. So, it has been given in the law leeway to do whatever needs to be done so that it can maintain its role as the apex investigative authority. Now this section 58A is now saying, we going to sideline the FCC now. It is no longer going to be an apex because by definition apex sits at the top, and now, we are going to have the FCC which is going to have basically the same, if not a reduced, role to that of the Commissioner of Police who now by default will enquire for cases under Rs500,000 which I understand. This is logical in fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because when you hear the arguments brought, you will understand that the reason why such an amendment was needed, was to unclogged the machine, the investigative machine of the FCC to allow it to focus, of course, on major financial crimes. So then, it was decided and it was a good decision for minor offences to be dealt with by the Police. But then also, comes the Budget 2025/2026 which gives the considerable increase to the budget of the FCC – 38% increase. Of course, so that we allow the FCC to go and recruit personal it needs. In fact, 38% also in staff allowances, staff costs. So, the idea in the Budget was to allow the FCC to make use of all the arsenals it has been given. It was a monster by all means but still on paper, it has all the prowess of being an effective apex investigative body. But we increased the budget to 38% for this financial year. Therefore, we tell the FCC, we are giving you more money, we are reducing your caseload, we are giving minor offenses to the Commissioner of Police for you to be able to focus on these important investigations that we judge as priorities. But then how do you explain that after all of that, the FCC by the way, with its Rs415 million has, do not forget, in-house counsels and attorneys, specialised investigators that have specialised degrees in investigating financial crimes, that received overseas training sent at the cost of the taxpayer to make them better, more efficient investigators. This is where the money is supposed to go, where they have surveillance equipment including putting people on surveillance, tapping, etc. The FCC has that power in its legislation and there is, of course, the interagency cooperation where, as the apex body, it can call in whoever it wants under section 58 and hold hearings and people have to attend. But on the other hand, we have now the Police. The Police who, do not forget, is supposed to prevent, detect and investigate crimes including the CCID but who sees its

104 budget in terms of human resources capacity being cut by 10% from 9431 officers funded for the last financial year down to 8550 officers. So, on the one hand, we are increasing FCC budget, we are telling them go and recruit. Here we are slashing police staff posted to prevent, detect and investigate, including the CCID, we are slashing among their ranks and we are now saying that section 58A makes sense. How does it make sense? How, when the proliferation of drugs is something which is happening at an unprecedented rate? Violent crime is on the rise. Insecurities are growing concerns in the heart and the mind of every Mauritian in this country. So, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Police ought to have had other priorities, ought to have put their resources better, in places where they ought to have been more efficient. But let us come to section 58 now, there are other issues in terms of how it works in practice. We know that the FCC, as the apex investigating authority, was not answerable to anyone or be it with the amendments that have been brought by this Government which were good amendments, I intervened on those when I was given a proper ranking to intervene after ministers. I did intervene to say that these amendments were in fact meritorious; to give back the DPP the power to take the decision whether to institute prosecutions or not. But then, as still the apex investigating authority, it is now being asked to work in tandem with the Police in two manners. First, for existing investigations, the Police may request to step in – fair enough under your amendment. The Police, if you will see under this section 58A(1) where the Commissioner of Police considers it will be in the interest of the efficient conduct of an investigation into any offence under this Act and that the offense is not already under investigation by the Commission, the Police shall investigate into the offence. In fact, I was talking about subsection (3), but this subsection, let me make that point now, where a declaration will now be made at the Police, the CCID for example, if it has been assigned the file, en tout cas, les Casernes, will have the authority and the mandate to open the investigation themselves for an offence falling under the Financial Crimes Act. You look at it you will see if the FCC is not investigating it, the Commissioner of Police shall do it. So, if a declaration is made at les Casernes, it can do it at the outset. It would then be for the FCC to ask the Commissioner of Police to step into the inquiry. Les rôles se sont renversés. Now, for the rest, I was saying where under subsection (5), where the Commission and the Commissioner of Police agree that it is in the interest of efficient conduct of the

105 investigation into an offence under this Act, they shall jointly investigate into the offence and for that purpose they shall make suitable arrangements. So, that will concern ongoing investigations, potentially future investigations opened by the FCC but the matter remains that under subsection (1), the police will, from the outset, be eligible, be allowed, be enabled to open the inquiry themselves; it would then be for the FCC, for the Commission to request that they join in. This is how it is going to happen. So, is that not infringing, going against the spirit of the law? And the questions that are being raised are as follows: will there not be another potential conflict between agencies? I will come to it. But first question, when we are talking of for example where will the interviews be conducted; interviews of accused, of witnesses; will it be at Ebene? Will it be at Casernes? Where will the files be kept? Are there going to be two files? Is there going to be one file? In which office is it going to be kept? At the Casernes or at the FCC? Who will be recording the statements? These are the questions. And then you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir…

You have got three minutes to go.

…the potential conflict under the investigation that is under section 58A, actually the FCC has to refer the investigation to the Commission to make a report and then the report is sent to the DPP but then, now that the Commissioner of Police may investigate as well, is he now going to be able to send himself the recommendations for prosecution to the DPP? To send the file to the DPP from the Commissioner of Police’s initiatives himself or will it go under section 58A? Nothing provides for this and this brings me to the same conflict that brought this Government to introduce the Bail Act to clarify the powers of the DPP and the Commissioner of Police where there was at one point, institutions fighting amongst one another openly and which was, in fact, a disgrace for our Constitution. But then, we remember for example, the hon. Ag. Attorney General at the time, my friend hon. Shakeel Mohamed, was then the one who brought the amendment to the House and he said – “The encroachment blurred the lines between investigation…” At that time, he was talking of the DPP and the police investigation and prosecution, two distinct functions assigned by the Constitution to test two separate authorities but what he said was more interesting about the police. It led to a toxic situation, one where the police and

106 the apex prosecuting authority were in open conflict, forced into lawsuits against each other. One where public trust in the justice system eroded as citizens questioned whose orders were the police truly following. One where suspicions of political interference in the detention of citizens were being justified. That was being said for the Bail Act. I will now ask the Government whether, this risk does not arise, where the conflict between the FCC and the Commissioner of Police become another source of open fighting. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir…

You may conclude now, please.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am concluding now…

Thank you.

…to say that it is a shame that not enough time was given to Members of Parliament to look into these amendments, especially since in the past, this manner of doing things had been criticised. Earlier this year, Members of this House came to apologise when a Certificate of Urgency was used on another Bill introduced to Parliament where you were saying ‘We apologise, this is not the way of doing things but things are urgent.’ I must say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have not found any compelling argument till now to justify why this amendment is being brought under this Certificate of Urgency, having bypassed the Parliamentary Commission which has been empowered to make recommendations of these sorts to this House. Thank you.

Thank you. Hon. Minister Uteem! (5.26 p.m.)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the country, the nation and the generations to come when reading Hansard will remember that on a 15 July 2025 when this Government brought legislation to render investigations into financial crimes more efficient, more effective, the two Members of the Opposition took position against that law. Why did they take position against that law? Because this law is going to give power to investigate into malversation when they were in Government!

107

(Interruptions)

That is why they are objecting!

(Interruptions)

He is just replying. He is replying…

The hon. Leader of the Opposition comes and reads from our Government Programme and says that we had said that we will take immediate measures to ensure that law agencies operate in total independence. What was the first Bill that we brought this year? Was it not a Bill to amend the Financial Crimes Commission precisely to give the independence, to restore independence to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Was that not fast enough? The Leader of the Opposition is telling us that we are taking time to bring the Bill on the National Crime Agency. We have been here for seven months, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. When the Financial Crimes Commission which was voted in 2023, do you know when it was announced by the MSM Government? In 2015! It took you eight years to come up with the Financial Crimes Commissions and now after eight months, you expect us to come with a new law? And when we are not doing it, you are telling us about notre procès d’intention? This Bill is urgent, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because there are ongoing investigations, there are potential investigations and the Financial Crimes Commission needs the support of the police to resolve some of these inquiries. This is the reason why we are coming here. And why are we coming here? The hon. Member did not say a word about the Financial Taskforce. Hon. Members would remember how under the MSM Government, the reputation of Mauritius as a financial centre, was tainted when the Financial Action Taskforce back on 21 February 2020, placed Mauritius on its grey list as a jurisdiction under increased monitoring. Soon after, the European Commission placed Mauritius on its black list of jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies in AML/CFT regime. There were serious deficiencies in our anti-money laundering and control of terrorist financing. Why? If you look at the official communiqué issued by the FATF in February 2020, one of the main reasons why Mauritius was placed on the grey list was our inability to demonstrate, and I quote – “(…) that law enforcement agencies had the capacity to conduct money laundering investigation including parallel financial investigation in complex cases.”

108 We were unable to carry out financial investigation in complex cases. There was a glaring lack of coordination between our law enforcement agencies. Institutions were operating in silos. Critical intelligence was not being shared and investigations were often delayed, compromised due to overlapping mandates and fragmented efforts. May I remind the hon. Member what recommendation 30 of the FATF provides? I quote – “At least in all cases related to major proceeds‑generating offences, these designated law enforcement authorities should develop a pro‑active parallel financial investigation when pursuing money laundering, associated predicate offences and terrorist financing.” This is what we are doing. We are applying what FATF is telling us to do; to allow parallel investigations. What did the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group (ESAAMLG) state in its report dated July 2018, which was the basis on which we were grey listed? At paragraph 6 of page 7, I read – “Law enforcement agencies (LEAs) do not conduct parallel financial investigations in a majority of cases, and particularly for offences such as drug trafficking which is a high- risk offence in Mauritius.” We were criticised precisely because the Police and the ICAC then were not doing parallel investigation. Today, when we are going to allow the Police and the FCC to conduct parallel investigations, you are telling us that we are en train de démanteler la lutte contre la corruption? ESAAMLG, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, noted that the law enforcement agencies, ICAC, now FCC, the CCID, ADSU and MRA as well as the FIU had been working without proper cooperation, coordination and information sharing among themselves. This resulted in lengthy and ineffective investigation and very low number of convictions. C’est cela le bilan du MSM. 10 ans! How many persons arrested and convicted for fraud and corruption? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with the proposed amendment, there would be a proper cooperation and coordination between the Police and the FCC. Where the Commissioner of Police agrees that it would be in the interest of the efficient conduct of an investigation into an offence, they may jointly investigate the offence with the FCC. When they do so, both the

109 FCC and the Police will make suitable arrangements for the effective conduct of a joint investigation. It would appear that hon. Adrien Duval, who left without listening to what I have to say about the points he raised, seemed to have completely overlooked the amendments that have been circulated.

Li pann konpran!

The amendment clearly provides now that it is not going to be a monopoly of the Police or the Police taking over the work of the FCC or the Police replacing the FCC as an apex body. No! There will be collaboration. The Police “may”, not the police “shall”. The Police “may.” When the Police decides to conduct the investigation, they still have to inform the FCC. The FCC can say to the Police: ‘Let us work together. We conduct the investigation together. Let us work on a suitable arrangement for the sharing of information.’ It is not that the Police is replacing the FCC. The Police and the FCC will work together where necessary. Now, why is that important, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir? Let us take an investigation being carried out by the Police, ADSU, into a drug trafficking offence. They are investigating. They are collecting intelligence and arresting people. Then, soon they find out that the proceeds of the crime, the money, have been used to buy a yacht, a Raptor or buildings.

Enn château à Angus Road!

So, during the investigation, the proceeds of the crime are identified. At this point in time, what does the Police do? Under the then Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 45 (2) provided, I quote – “Where in the course of a Police enquiry – (a) it is suspected that an act of corruption or a money laundering offence has been committed; and (b) the Commissioner of Police is of the opinion that the matter ought to be investigated by the Commission [ICAC],

110 the Commissioner of Police may notwithstanding the Financial Intelligence and Anti- Money Laundering Act 2002 (…) refer the matter to the Commission for investigation.” So, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which preceded the Financial Crimes Commission, there was this possibility that in the course of investigation, the Police finds that an offence may have been committed under another Act which falls under ICAC. At that point in time, the Police could refer, “may” refer. And the Police could continue doing its investigation. When the Financial Crimes Commission Act was voted in 2023, Section 56 (3), Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, provides that, I quote – “Where in the course of a criminal enquiry, the Commissioner of Police suspects that an offence under this Act or the Declaration of Assets Act has been, is being or is likely to be committed, he shall, [Not he may. He ‘shall.’] subject to subsection (4), refer the matter within 72 hours to the Commission [the FCC] for investigation.” So, here, the word is “shall”. So, as soon as the Police finds out that there is money laundering involved, they do not have any jurisdiction to continue investigation. The two exceptions are where there is an investigation in a fraud matter, the value of which is less than Rs500,000 or an investigation in the financing of drug dealing, the value of which is less than Rs500,000. Why was that done? That was done purposely, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in 2023, to take away powers from the Police and give it to the FCC. Why? Because under the FCC law, as voted then, the FCC could close the investigation and not refer it to the DPP. That was the reason why the power was withdrawn from the Police and given to the FCC so that they can hide and cover up everything.

Angus Road!

So that people like Franklin and others can be protected. Now, that we have restored the powers of the DPP, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is only natural that we should restore the power of the Police to conduct an investigation in an offence which falls under the FCC Act, where it would be – that is the main tabloid – in the

111 interest of the efficient conduct of an investigation. That the Police be allowed to conduct the inquiry either together with the FCC or alone, but in coordination with the FCC. Why is important? It is important because – hon. Adrien Duval himself said so – the FCC does not have the financial means which the Police has. Complex cases involving cross border transactions, investigations which require technologically sophisticated equipment and tracking devices are involved, the Police are better equipped than the FCC. When there is the need to cooperate with international crimes fighting agencies, again, the Police has treaties that they have signed where it is easier to ask for collaboration for cross border investigations if it is done by the Police. For example, Scotland Yard. If the Police makes a request to Scotland Yard, there is no problem. But if it is the FCC which does so, then, it has to go through a lot of diplomatic channels before it is able to get the assistance. So, using the Police is not only more efficient, but also timelier. We are not saying that in almost all cases the FCC will now ask the Police for help. But there may be cases where the help of the Police would be important. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, no single agency can tackle financial crime effectively if it acts alone. The FCC, with its mandate to investigate financial offences, brings specialised financial expertise and forensic capacity. However, the Police, on the other hand, has broader investigatory authorities, more operational resources and law enforcement at reach. It is not like competing. Together, they are complementing each other. We needed to bring this amendment precisely because we did not want any suspect, when going to court, to argue that the police did not have authority to conduct investigation once there was an offence under the Act because as I have alluded previously, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under section 56 (3), the police does not have a choice, he has to give up the enquiry if there is an offence suspected to have been committed under the Act, the value of which is more than Rs500,000. So, in order to avoid any challenge by any suspect, that the police was not entitled to investigate, that is why we are bringing in this piece of amendment to plug that loophole. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. Adrien Duval makes the big meal out of the fact that the Parliamentary Committee had not been consulted. Coming from a lawyer, adviser, I am very disappointed because the powers, the functions, the roles of the Parliamentary Committee is governed by the law, by the Financial Crimes Commission Act and under

112 section 131 – “Function and powers of the Parliamentary Committee” are there and they don’t have any role in legislative drafting, in suggesting law for joint collaboration. This is beyond their mandate and as primary counsel, let me remind him what was going on when the MSM was in power? There was not even a quorum, even the Members of Government were not attending that Parliamentary Committee. It was never sitting! And now, today, he is telling us, giving us lesson that we ought to have consulted a Parliamentary Committee. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will end by saying that allowing the police to conduct joint investigation with the FCC is in the interest of efficiency. This will send a strong signal to the public, to the international community, to the criminals out there that Mauritius is serious, unlike the Opposition, this Government is serious about fighting financial crimes, and above all, doing what they were unable to do which is securing conviction and recovering ill-gotten assets. Allowing proactive parallel financial investigation will also reassure FATF and our international partners that we are strengthening our AML/CFT regime and this will enhance our image as a serious, well-regulated financial centre and the image which has been tainted by the MSM government. Never again, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, should anyone ever point fingers at our jurisdiction. I am done. Thank you.

Hon. Attorney General! (5.45 p.m.) The Attorney-General (Mr G. Glover, SC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, each time I rise towards the end of speeches following a proposal to amend a law, I am as astounded as the last occasion by the lack of precision of the Opposition in bringing out the true issues that need to be debated before this House. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, has read the paragraph 10 of the Government Programme, he read it very well, but that is in contradistinction with his fellow colleague the Whip of the Opposition who seems to have completely forgotten to read the proposed amendments to be moved at Committee Stage which led him to make a bit of a hash of his intervention as already pointed out by the hon. Member who has just spoken before me.

113 Now, we have been served with expressions like crise institutionnelle, amateurisme, bras droit du Premier ministre, du déjà-vu, all this from the Leader of the Opposition, barely is only one thing is that the Leader of the Opposition’s reading of these proposed amendments est to use the language he likes to use, une lecture simpliste et biaise pour des raisons bassement politiques. That the FCC Act is a despicable piece of legislation, is a true statement; that the FCC Act will be repealed is also a truism. What we will do is to bring about a proper legislation, one which reflects our commitment to the rule of law, not what one wants to do in order to take control over things. And on the matter of control, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. Whip of the Opposition is absolutely wrong when he says that there would be a potential conflict between the FCC and the Commissioner of Police. The hon. Prime Minister has very clearly set out the scenarios which are capable of existing under the proposed amendments and let me at this stage go back to what I had planned to say to this House this afternoon. This Government, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir has repeatedly pledged that we shall leave no stone unturned in our commitment to strengthen our countries, investigative capabilities particularly against financial crimes. In previous debates, I have emphasized that ensuring a functional criminal justice system is a priority of ours. The aim being to reconcile the preservation of liberty and rights, with balanced the imperatives of security and accountability. Today, we revisit these principles through the lens of cooperation between law enforcement entities. Why? Because it is important to remind ourselves that although institutions must operate independently, they must nevertheless act cohesively. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must acknowledge that today’s landscape of financial crimes is more complex than ever. As such all criminal offences involving sums of money would at some stage also reveal aspects of money laundering or illicit financial flows. The interconnectedness demands, at the very least, cooperation between the police and the Financial Crimes Commission. So far, we have witnessed, unfortunately, situations where parallel investigation by these two entities though extensively addressing different offences inevitably encroach upon the same set of facts. I, myself, in my career, have argued a number of cases where the police were prosecuting an accused party under certain offences under the Criminal Code whilst at the same time, before a different Division of the Intermediate Court (Criminal Division) the same accused party, on the same facts, was being prosecuted under FIAMLA. This must stop

114 and this must be dealt with from the time of investigation. The overlap, as my learned friend the hon. Minister Uteem earlier on said, is obvious in cases of drug trafficking where separate investigations between ADSU and FCC can often lead to different results. A suspect may confess or collaborate with one entity whilst the other is left in the dark and its enquiry goes nowhere. The situation therefore creates duplicated efforts, wasteful expenditure and ultimately judicial uncertainty. Our courts would only be able to eventually address such overlaps when they are seized of the matters but even then, the procedural delays in determining whether two prosecutions relate to the same facts unnecessarily prolong legal uncertainty. And there is the possibility of contrasting, if not contradictory, judgements where one court would believe the FCC’s case but not the case of the police, leading to a situation where the accused is convicted of laundering the proceeds of crime but not convicted of the crime itself. At the same time, some criminal networks exploit those procedural gaps, ultimately undermining public trust and confidence in our justice system. The necessity, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, of joint and coordinated investigations between the FCC and the police, is also a matter of international compliance. The Financial Action Task Force in its Recommendation 30, calls upon countries to ensure, and I quote – “… designated law enforcement authorities have responsibility for money laundering and terrorist financing investigations within the framework of national AML/CFT policies.” It specifically urges that in all cases related to major proceeds-generating offences, authorities should develop and I quote – “a proactive parallel financial investigation.” And that this should cover cross border predicate offenses. Crucially, it also states that countries should use permanent or temporary multidisciplinary groups specialised in financial or asset investigations. In other words, the very structure of our law enforcement must reflect a capacity for institutions such as the FCC and the police to work jointly, swiftly and effectively across jurisdictions and investigative trails. This Bill represents a step towards that alignment. The proposed joint investigative mechanism stems a practical solution, allowing early- stage collaboration to avoid procedural pitfalls and ensure efficient use of resources. It

115 respects the distinctive mandate of each entity whilst acknowledging their intersection in the practical reality of complex investigations. The possibility of joint investigations, as outlined in the newly introduced section 58A of the Financial Crimes Commission Act, before this House today, allows for clearer, structured co-operation in three distinct scenarios. These three scenarios have been clearly spelt out by the hon. Prime Minister in his address. There is no need for me to go over these again. The mechanism provided in the new section 58A is mindful of the inherent independence of the two agencies and not as alleged that one would actually overstep on the authority of the other. Although the default position is the situation when both agencies agree to work together, the law provides for other possible situations. The imperative that can be called from these amendments is one of efficient collaboration when the circumstances demand. To summarise, if both the FCC and police do not see the merit of a joint investigation, there will be none. If both decide one is necessary, they are free to pool their efforts freely but if ever one of them is of the opinion that a joint investigation is needed and the other agency is not so sure, the law will now command co-operation. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the importance in urgency of these amendments is reflected in the fact that we are not waiting for the establishment of the new National Crime Agency to include them in our law enforcement arsenal. They reflect, n’en déplaise à certains, our broader vision articulated in the Government Programme 2025-2029, which emphasises on modernising and strengthening our justice system, fortifying our investigative frameworks and renewing public trust in our law enforcement institutions. By embedding structured joint investigations in our law today, we are laying a strong foundation for the establishment of the fully functional National Crime Agency that will comprehensively address not just financial crimes but all forms of serious and organised criminal activities. Indeed, the UK’s National Crime Agency provides a compelling model, showcasing the clear advantages of integrated investigating frameworks, collaborative policing and strategic resource allocation. Our collaboration with the UK government expected to run into 2026, will ensure Mauritius benefits fully from what has worked in the UK and the lessons learned there as well. Drawing from such international experience, our amendments today prepare

116 Mauritian institutions to seamlessly evolve into a similarly powerful and effective entity from the outset. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in our previous legislative amendments, notably to the Bail Act and the Financial Crimes Commission Act itself, we have consistently aimed to resolve ambiguity and clarify roles. Just as we saw to rectify the confusion between prosecutorial and investigative files in the previous amendments to the FCC Act, so too, do we today, aim in reinforcing clarity. This government remains steadfastly committed to ensuring the rule of law remains the cornerstone of our democracy. Our institutions must be clear in their purpose, independent in their operations and co-operative in their execution. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these amendments are important to our commitment to securing a safe and prosperous future for Mauritius. They form the bedrock upon which we will build our future National Crime Agency, ensuring Mauritius remains vigilant and resilient against financial and organised crimes for many years to come. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with these words, I commend the Bill to House.

Hon. Prime Minister! (5.58 p.m.)

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sorry for my voice. I sometimes despair that I have to answer these ridiculous things that they say. The hon. Minister, Reza Uteem, and just before me, the Attorney General have responded so clearly as to why these amendments are being bought. The Leader of the Opposition asked why in the Programme we said that a new law, the NCA will be passed, and then after seven months, nothing. Hon. Reza Uteem quite rightly pointed out. They took eight years to do what they said they would do. Eight years! And you are asking me as why in seven months we have not done it! In fact, we explained that there are already people from Scotland Yard who are helping us, police officers, investigative police officers. This is a transitional exercise that we are doing until the NCA is properly vetted and ready to be passed. The other ridiculous thing was about the Parliamentary Committee. I think hon. Uteem rightly pointed out – since when do we pass legislation after consulting the Parliamentary Committee. It does not. Never! That’s never happened.

117

Incroyable!

Three months ago!

It’s ridiculous!

(Interruptions)

Listen! Listen!

You should have been here when he spoke, but you were not here. You should have been here. He explained that properly for your benefit.

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: To pa ti la!

Because obviously you are ignorant of all this.

Three months ago! An hon. Member: Read the law!

Ask the Junior Minister! An hon. Member: Read the law!

(Interruptions)

He told you, read the law.

Order! Order! Let’s listen to the hon. Prime Minister. Come on.

Dir li res trankil!

Li ti al promne deor. Li pann tan repons!

I would just repeat what I said anyway. Everybody knows why the FCC was passed; everybody knows, including your father because he objected to it. It was not to intensify the combat against fraud, corruption or crimes, whatever. No, it was to protect those who the last government wanted to protect and to harass those they wanted to harass. That was the reason; that’s the only reason. I will give you an example. You remember the former Director of ICAC? He said one thing and then he went to the usual committee of the Privy Council on MedPoint and said the other thing, contradicting ICAC itself! But what hon. Adrien Duval does not seem to know or has forgotten – Angus Road! You know what the FCC did? We had asked for mutual

118 assistance. When they came to power, they wrote to the UK authorities to say that they are cancelling the demand for mutual assistance. An hon. Member: Bez sa!

They cancelled it for Angus Road so that no investigation is done, because they knew what would have happened. That is what they did.

And you sit next to them!

Actually, we cannot believe that this was done! And these are the very people who are now telling us what to do and what not to do! I despair, as I said, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir! Les rôles sont renversés. As the hon. Attorney General said, they are missing the real issues. They are trying to do politics while missing the real issues. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (The Deputy Speaker in the Chair) THE FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. XVI of 2025) Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 (New section 58A inserted in principal Act) Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Chairperson, I move for the following amendment in clause 4 – In clause 4, in the proposed new section 58A – (a) in subsection (1), by deleting the words “investigation into any offence under this Act that the Police should investigate into the offence” and “shall investigate” and replacing them by the words “existing or intended investigation

119 into any offence that the Police should investigate into an offence under this Act” and “may investigate”, respectively; (b) in subsection (3), by deleting the words “is investigating” and “a suspected offence” and replacing them by the words “is investigating or intends to investigate” and “an offence”, respectively; (c) in subsection (4), by deleting the words “agree to undertake” and replacing them by the words “makes a request for”. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. The title and enacting clause were agreed to. The Bill, as amended, was agreed to.

Please be seated! On the Assembly resuming with the Deputy Speaker in the Chair, the Deputy Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Financial Crimes Commission (Amendment) Bill (No. XVI of 2025) was read the third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that this Assembly do now adjourn to Tuesday 22 July 2025 at 11.30 a.m. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

The House stands adjourned! At 6.05 p.m., the Assembly was, on its rising, adjourned to Tuesday 22 July 2025 at 11.30 a.m.

120 WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RODRIGUES REGIONAL ASSEMBLY – ACCOUNTS – PUBLIC FUNDS MANAGEMENT