After ministers and MPs strolled back into the National Assembly following a long undeserved holiday during which the Angus Road scandal kept making the headlines, we expected well prepared, focused questions and definite, clear answers. We got neither as it happens. The mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse.

A question about the nature and details of a possible complaint before the Independent Commission Against Corruption was tantamount to a gift from heaven for Pravind Jugnauth; the answers he gave – or to be more precise did NOT give – were to be expected. Nor can one blame him for stating that disclosure of any information in that respect by the ICAC is an offence under section 81 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. And he almost pulled it off.

Two things marred the nearly perfect performance of a prime minister playing by the rules and operating within the technical parameters of what is allowed under the legal and political system. First, his refusal to answer even the questions which had nothing to do with the ICAC. Someone who has nothing to hide would have been very happy to answer the very legitimate question of whether the Mutual Legal Assistance with the UK Serious Fraud Office was stopped by then-Attorney General Ravi Yerrigadoo in February/March 2015. Why that early? How is that a priority for a government that never tired of repeating that it wanted to eradicate graft and corruption in this country? Admittedly, these questions were asked in a confused way but by refusing to entertain any question at all about the Angus Road polemic, the prime minister clearly gave the nation free rein to find the answers in the questions themselves.  

The second hurdle to a well-orchestrated performance was the speaker. It is common knowledge that Sooroojdev Phokeer never really managed to rise above the status of goalkeeper for the government, particularly for the prime minister, to be considered a real referee respectful of parliamentary democracy. This time, he surpassed himself by actually stepping into the arena, dribbling the ball and even trying to dictate the outcome of the game. A brilliant statement which will be recorded in our history book is asking the leader of the opposition to withdraw ‘the prime minister whatever whatever’!  In other words, withdraw anything he said about the prime minister, even if the speaker did not quite remember what he had heard before ruling it as unparliamentary nevertheless.

The panic, refusal to answer and the frontal assault on democracy caused the prime minister more harm than the questions. So the opposition did not go away empty-handed. The prime minister did officially admit that he is being investigated by the anti-corruption body. Though we know the ICAC is more of a washing machine than an investigator, with that admission, his image – already dented by Bhadain’s allegations and the press – was smashed in front of his own ministers, one of whom had to resign for much less substantiated allegations for his boss to maintain an image that is now coming apart at the seams.

The silence and inaction of the normally very trigger-happy Jugnauth in the face of very serious allegations and taunting by the leader of the Reform Party are not likely to help. The squeaky clean character he brags about at every opportunity has been ripped apart. The resulting wound will fester for a long, long time.