Imagine if a minister was caught selling cocaine to school kids, buying rosewood illegally or asking for a bribe. Imagine that someone recorded the whole thing. Would it matter who the person holding the recorder was? Would it make a difference if he was dead against the minister politically, a supporter or completely apolitical? Let us play with the thought that the person who blew the whistle truly wanted the minister ousted, gone from government. Would that change the fact that the minister sold cocaine to school kids, bought rosewood illegally or asked for a bribe? 

It would not – and any attempt at shifting the focus to the person recording would have been an insult to the policy of placing value in whistleblowers. It would have sent a strong warning signal to anyone pondering over whether they should take the risk of exposing serious abuses of power. It would be the equivalent of telling them: “If you do this, you will be scrutinised. Your past will be exposed, and you will have to answer questions about your political opinions, your list of contacts, your life… It’s probably not worth it, is it?”

It has become a keep-your-eyes-on-the-sparrow challenge, the bribery accusation against Raj Dayal. It’s up to the relevant authorities to investigate whether there is enough material to argue that he broke the anti-corruption laws, granted. What we know is this: In a recording that went viral, Dayal says that he needs money. He asks the other person to “support him”, and talks about an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) permit that the person will be given for a project… It’s enough to give the population –which continues to pay Dayal’s salary as a member of parliament –  the right to answers. Yet, Dayal refuses to acknowledge that he is the sparrow in this story.

Right from the start, Dayal switched the focus away from himself, strategically it seemed, by naming the person who recorded him. Accusing him of ulterior motives, Dayal refused to answer the one question that mattered. ”Was it your voice, Minister?” In the end, it was the leader of his party, Pravind Jugnauth, who confirmed that ena so lavwa lor sa bann recording la (“it’s his voice on those recordings”). But by that time, part of the damage had already been done.

The man who blew the whistle now shares the limelight with Dayal; details about his life are being exposed (it’s been highlighted that he was once accused of but never charged of rape). Please. Let us not fall into the trap of believing that the man’s background or reasons for reporting Dayal are of any importance. The man can be an angel or a demon, an axe murderer or Mother Teresa. He can have no interest whatsoever in wanting Dayal gone or a blatantly strong one. It is of zero importance. What matters is that a member of our parliament was recorded asking a businessman for money. We deserve answers. We deserve details. We need to keep our eye on the sparrow, regardless of where the sparrow wants us to look.

For more views and in-depth analysis of current issues, subscribe to Weekly for as little as Rs110 a month. Free delivery to your door. Contact us: touria.prayag@lexpress.mu