Madam Speaker, let me start by setting the record straight. The allegation made by the former Minister of Finance that the Bank of Mauritius has printed and transferred Rs83 billion to Government is entirely false, unfounded and malicious. Either this or he does not understand how the system works. On the contrary, I am informed by the Bank of Mauritius that under the previous Government, the bank printed a total of Rs181.5 billion with part of the amount remitted to the Government and the remainder used to finance the Mauritius Investment Corporation. Again, let me say, it is Rs181.5 billion that they printed. This is the consequence of what we are seeing today. A total amount of Rs97 billion was remitted to the Government during the period 2019 to 2024 as follows – • Rs18 billion in December 2019 for repayment of external debt; • Rs15 billion in April 2020 through the subscription of a 5-Year Government of Mauritius Bond; • Rs55 billion in the month of August 2020 and September 2020 as a one-off contribution to the budget, and • Rs9 billion to the Development Bank of Mauritius Limited, the Industrial Finance Corporation of Mauritius Limited and the State Investment Corporation Limited through lines of credit. Furthermore, an additional amount of Rs3.5 billion was remitted to the National Property Fund through a line of credit prior to 2019. In addition, the Mauritius Investment Corporation Limited was fully financed by printing of money to the tune of Rs81 billion. Madam Speaker, the previous Government amended the Bank of Mauritius Act twice – 1. In 2019, through the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2019 to allow the Bank to remit printed money to Government for the repayment of external debt. This had never, never happened before. 2. In 2020, through the COVID-19 (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020, they allowed the Bank to remit printed money again to Government to finance the budget deficit. Clearly, Madam Speaker, the Central Bank was directly financing government expenditure by printing money. This amounted to the monetisation of the budget deficit in its purest forms. The funds in question did not originate from accumulated reserves as repeatedly asserted by the former Minister of Finance, but rather from the sheer creation of new money by the Central Bank itself. Worse still, Madam Speaker, the MIC was created initially at the means to support systemic companies but turned out to be a vehicle through which vast sums were challenged to associates and beneficiaries closely connected to the former Minister of Finance. This financial monstrosity has weakened the balance sheet of the Central Bank and constitutes a potential contingent liability to Government. As I have previously stated, Madam Speaker, the reckless printing of money by the previous administration of the Bank of Mauritius has had devastating consequences on our economy. Excess liquidity in the banking sector reached record levels. The inflation rate peaked, as I said earlier, to 11.3 per cent in February 2023. The rupee depreciated significantly, as I said, 46 per cent from 2019 to 2024. And excessive consumption fuelled by substantial amount of money created led to a dramatic increase in the visible trade deficit. The printing of money weakened the Bank's balance sheet and diminished its ability for effective monetary policy implementation. Madam Speaker, this was the disastrous bilan of the previous Government and the legacy of the former Minister of Finance. Yet, today, he has the audacity to claim that under this Government, the Bank of Mauritius has printed Rs83 billion. Such a statement is not only false, but also reflects a blatant attempt to distort the facts and mislead the public. That is what they are doing.

Action. Bizin ena enn action contre li.

There is. This is sheer intellectual dishonesty. It potentially leads to the conclusion that the former Minister perhaps does not understand basic monetary economics. This, Madam Speaker, cannot be accepted or condoned and must be met with appropriate actions in the interest of truth and public accountability. I am informed by the Bank of Mauritius that it has taken a number of actions to dispel any doubts that may have arisen from these unfounded allegations of money printing by the former Minister of Finance. These are as follows – (a) The Bank has properly issued a public notice wherein it firmly refuted the allegations and clarified that there were no money printing and transfer to the Government in 2025; (b) Through the Public Notice, the Bank informed all stakeholders and the public in general that information on monetary developments, which clearly shows that there was no money printing by the Bank, could be easily accessed into its Monthly Statistical Bulletin published on its website, that is, the Bank's website; (c) The Bank has provided all media houses with the relevant data along with an explanatory text to ensure that they have accurate information and to help them avoid any misinterpretation in their analysis of the matter, and (d) The Bank has maintained a regular communication with media houses and provided them with any further clarifications required on the matter. Madam Speaker, I am also informed by the Bank of Mauritius that after consultations with their legal team, it has made a statement to the Central CID on 16 May 2026 on the very serious, false and malicious information by the former Minister of Finance.

Bravo!

Madam Speaker, as an International Financial Centre, our reputation is a key asset that underpins investor confidence and sustains economic stability. It is highly irresponsible for the former Minister of Finance to cast doubt in the minds of the public just for the sake of political gain. We must not and will not tolerate any such unfounded allegations or misinformation that could undermine the confidence in our institutions and financial system.

Très bien!

Yes, one question.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Obviously, these gratuitous allegations have been made with a view to undermine public confidence.

No statement!

Other than the communiqué, the Public Notice and the matter having been reported to the CID, would the hon. Prime Minister invite the Bank of Mauritius to take appropriate civil action against this gentleman in order to avoid acts and doings of this sort in the future?

Advice for civil action.

They have already reported the case, as I said, and I believe they will be calling him.

Okay, time is up. The Table has been advised, Members, that the following PQs have been withdrawn: B/791, B/793, B/794, B/795, B/796, B/799, B/801 and B/803. Thank you very much. We have time for a few questions. I would call on hon. First Member for Savanne. BLACK RIVER DISTRICT - SCAVENGING SERVICES - CONTRACTORS