Today is Anti-Corruption Day and if we go by the report released by Transparency International (TI), there isn’t much for us to celebrate, is there?

It depends which way you look at it and if we accept that TI is a benchmark. I personally think we have to take into consideration two things: first, the specificities of Mauritius and then how the surveys are carried out. In fact, for the Corruption Perception Index (CPI), TI bases itself on some surveys carried out by the World Bank and other organisations.

Isn’t that better in the sense that a survey carried out by several international organisations is likely to be more objective?

Not necessarily. Many questions arise as to why TI chooses some sources rather than others. Why not the Mo Ibrahim Index, for example, or the Freedom House Index where these sources usually find that corruption is
relatively low in Mauritius. Corruption issues are not the major thrust of the surveys TI bases itself upon. It is not a criticism but we have to put things in perspective. Besides, the survey is about perception. It is about how the citizens in Mauritius perceive the problem of corruption.

Isn’t that how corruption is measured the world over. How else would you measure corruption?

By statistics. By focusing on cases reported. Countries have different ways of measuring corruption. Besides, the questions asked in the surveys are very important. There was a survey carried out by the World Bank which came out in 2010 where 50% of the people surveyed said there was a perception of corruption in Mauritius but when asked how many of them experienced it fi rst hand, only a tiny 1.89 % people said they had.

Still, aren’t you worried about the way we are going?

No. (Raising his voice) People just talk without realizing what is in the report. Did you know that last year, TI based itself on the same six sources they based themselves on this year. Five of these sources either ranked
Mauritius higher or slightly lower. Only one source ranked Mauritius lower by one whole point. That’s a lot.

Which source?

The Bertelsmann Foundation Transformation Index 2010.

Why do you think it did?

I don’t know but the survey was carried out in 2010 so I presume it is because of the Boskalis case but we need to keep on analysing.

What you are saying is that you are taking this report with a pinch of salt…

No, but you have to put things in context.

And what is the context?

The context is that if you are analysing the perception corruption at a particular time in a particular year and you mix it up with the perception in 2009, you get different results! You have to take all the sources from the same year bearing in mind that the questions asked should be reasonable. There is a lot of criticism about these surveys worldwide.

Maybe. But this is all we have. How do you interpret these fi ndings, imperfect though they may be?

O.K. Let’s assume the questions asked were reasonable and the sample is representative and the survey is perfect, and let’s assume therefore that people do have the perception that there is more corruption in Mauritius. I would take this very positively. The talk and sensitization by the ICAC and other stakeholders may have played a major part in creating that perception by making things public. People are reporting more cases and understand more about corruption so they may get the impression that there are more cases.

This is your interpretation. Other analysts have a totally different interpretation.

They think we owe this low ranking to MedPoint, Boskalis and Co. which, rightly or wrongly, have stood out and marked everyone’s minds. As I said before, you have to take into account the specifi cities of Mauritius.

What kind of specifi cities would make a transaction like MedPoint acceptable?

What I mean by specifi cities is the way people’s minds can be infl uenced by what they read and what they hear.

By what the press reports…go on, say it.

(Laughs) Sometimes it’s true but I am referring more to the fact that, in Mauritius, news goes very fast and people always jump to conclusions without having details of the facts.

What are the facts about Med-Point?

(More laughter) I can’t tell you the facts about MedPoint.

Then let me hold on to the perception that this case is dragging on forever, that we do not seem to see the end of it or hear anything about it.

 I think this is where sometimes the game is not fair. Because everyone knows that there is a case in court. So when you say that you do not see the end of it or hear anything, you are trying to voluntarily or purposefully ignore that. That is not fair. Once things are in court, we can’t talk about them. They are sub judice. I don’t make the rules. I only respect them.

In this whole affair, do you think you treated everyone fairly?

Exactly the same. You are probing into things I can’t talk about. (Chuckles) I keep saying that we have something in the ICAC which is our motto and we can’t go outside that: enquiries are done by humans and they have to be based on facts, information and the evidence before them us and cases have to be treated according to the laws of the country. When I say humans, there are many people involved at all the stages of the investigation and records are kept for our own appreciation or for any possible justifi cation at a proper forum. We are satisfi ed that we treat everyone in the fairest possible way. Sometimes, we are too fair. You keep telling me, “We don’t hear anything.” I’m sorry but if you don’t hear anything it’s because the law says you shouldn’t hear anything. If the law gave me the power to talk, don’t you think I would? But talking may also jeopardize the enquiry. We have to protect the integrity of the enquiry.

That’s all very well. But as far as we are concerned, if you don’t want to tell us something, you just tell us it’s sub judice and that puts an end to the discussion and we’ll never know the truth.

That’s where the law has put some checks and balances. All my enquiries imperatively have to go the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) after a further investigation stage and the DPP will peruse through his offi cers all
the facts of the case and question all the issues he is not satisfi ed with. Then, there is a second forum which is the Parliamentary Committee where they can ask any questions about any case which has been closed. So this issue of suggesting that we are hiding things or that we have things to hide is called blowing hot and cold. It is very, very unfair.

Don’t you think it’s our desire to know the facts which leads to the impression that you are hiding things away from us rather than any intellectual dishonesty?

But you need to balance your need to know with the integrity of an investigation. And one aspect which is very important is that until and unless a person has been called for interrogation, he shouldn’t know the details of the investigation, otherwise he will have enough time to go around and twist things. So confidentiality in our work is always the rule.

Alright, but we need to see some results in our life time. We need to know that your salary is justified.

Right, but you shouldn’t be unfair and put some tag on how we do our investigations. You need to know the predicament of making a successful corruption investigation. If you don’t understand that, you won’t understand what I’m trying to say.

Does this predicament apply to the all the high-profile cases? To the Boskalis case for example?

In the case of Boskalis, the investigation is not over. The case was at the level of a provisional charge when it was struck out. The accused does not plead to a provisional charge. There is no acquittal or dismissal on the merit of the case. There is a lot of evidence which is not in Mauritian territory and we need special legislation, mutual legal assistance, to get it. It’s the only way. We’ve done everything we can do but there is one piece of evidence which is being challenged by the courts in the Netherlands by the people from whom the evidence was gathered. The Netherlands won the case but it is now on appeal.

Thanks you for the details for the Boskalis case. Can you give me similar details about the MedPoint case?

The case I’ve talked about has already been heard in court. I can’t give particular details about other cases. What I can tell you  is that the case is nearly over. There are certain issues which the defence has brought before the court and we are waiting for the court to rule.

Now, this is not a reflection on your integrity but let’s say I was in your shoes and I did not want to see the conclusion of a particular case. I could keep on dreaming up some details every now and then and no one would hear the end of it.

We live in a country where there is the rule of law. In the case of MedPoint, what is preventing the enquiry from concluding is the fact that one of the suspects has gone to court to seek some documents. We have our own strategy which we cannot reveal at this point.

Until then, the perception will continue…

Perception is something we can do nothing about. It is not in our hands. Just imagine, if certain people perceive corruption to have increased because an investigation has taken one year, that is very unfair…

But when cases drag on, the perception of impunity increases…

No, things drag on because procedures are long. In certain foreign jurisdictions, cases have taken 10 years. Everything depends on the complexity of the case. I am not saying MedPoint will take that long…(Laughs)

So if I understand properly, what you are telling me is that all is well and that there is no big corruption problem in Mauritius.

I never said that. Personally, I think that in many quarters, in many departments, there has been at least one person who has been convicted and I think the combined effect of the prevention work we have been doing for quite a while and the deterrent effect which has started to stem out from the convictions we have been able to secure should have an effect. If people are not deterred by that, then we have a problem.

All this has taken time, hasn’t it?

Well, in 2006, when I took offi ce, we had only one chief investigator, the others had either resigned or their contract was not renewed. Today we have ten. Then we had to reorganize and recruit people on the board and we needed to start the training. Today, there are many cases in front of the court. But some people kept on saying that there is corruption in Mauritius often enough without realizing the harm that is causing. And that is how perceptions are created.

The only way to counteract that is through transparency.

Thank you. As a matter of fact, next year we are going to release a compilation of all the complaints we have received since 2003 to give details about the types of persons reported, the type of offences committed and the frequency of offences within certain departments.

What are you hoping to achieve through releasing this report?

We want to inform the public and give them an idea of how some complaints are handled, how far some complaints have been further investigated and why others could not go that far. The public also needs to know that, in many ways, they are to be blamed too as they are the ones offering the bribes and therefore making themselves vulnerable. We also want to remind the public officials of their duty to report corruption cases to us. That may also improve the perception our compatriots have of corruption.

But if you don’t think perception is important, why worry about it?

I am not worried about it at all! You are giving it importance. I don’t think it should be the case. It is good to know why people have such an impression. People are aware that there are 200 cases right now pending before court,with 600 people involved who have not been tried yet.

You are almost telling me that the fact that this perception is high is a good thing!

No, no it is not necessarily a good thing.

But not necessarily a bad thing.

What I am saying is that we should go beyond the survey and see why the people who have this perception have it.

What is your short answer to that?

My short answer is: look at the trend. There are cases being reported to the ICAC which were not reported previously. People now have the guts to report them. Look at how many people have been prosecuted. People
are more aware and less tolerant of corruption. Look at the profile of the people being reported.

People have more confi dence in the ICAC. In 2006, the number of cases was 600. Today, since January, 1600 cases have already been reported to us.

So, the cases have increased.

The reported cases have increased. That is the benchmark of the trust people have in the organisation. If you want to look at the theory that, in spite of all these people being convicted, there is more corruption, you
would be assuming that the deterrent effect is not working. That would be unreasonab

By Tooria Prayag (L’express Weekly)

By Tooria Prayag