Africa-Press – Mauritius. One could speculate on the reasons which finally prompted the President of the Republic to throw in the towel last Friday, and maintain that she could not hold up in the face of the pressures she had to undergo in recent weeks, or that she had to be advised to leave after the constitutional misstep of the institution of a Moollan commission of inquiry.
Still, she still has an obligation to speak, doesn’t she? Cader Sayed-Hossen: Indeed, only the President of the Republic knows exactly the reasons why she ended up resigning from her post, after having said and repeated that she was going to stay, and then that she was going to take action in justice against those who ‘slandered’ her (I quote her own words).
The impression she left then was that if she had to leave, well, she wouldn’t be the only one to do so. And then she leaves; she announces that she will not sue, that she will not hold any press conference, in short, that she will be silent.
In my opinion, the reasons for this are very simple: she will be silent on the underside of the Sobrinho affair and on the other culprits so that these other culprits are silent on her role in this affair.
All her previous bravado falls miserably into the water: resignation accompanied by the announcement of the establishment of a commission of inquiry, an unconstitutional act which immediately falls into the water and plunges the President into even more difficulty.
Pressures? You only give in to pressure if you have skeletons in the closet. Is that the case ? In any case, Mrs. Fakim’s role in the Sobrinho affair probably goes much further than her purchases of jewellery, shoes and other trinkets with Sobrinho’s money.
But, moreover, this Sobrinho affair goes much, much further than Ms. Fakim herself… And the latter knows it very well. The first five Terms of Reference of the commission of inquiry she wanted to set up clearly give the impression that she knows exactly what she is talking about.
She gives the impression of being perfectly aware of all the adventures that have allowed a businessman who is subject to six police courts – he is being investigated for suspicion of financial embezzlement and fraud – to obtain, by a shortcut, the authorization to open an investment bank in Mauritius.
It should be noted that his request had been deemed inadmissible by the Board of Investment in 2014, when Navin Ramgoolam was Prime Minister, and had been rejected by the Bank of Mauritius under the direction of Basant Roi.
That she is aware of all these stories of the 34 times Sobrinho had access to the State Lounge at the airport and note that it is the Prime Minister’s Office that authorizes access to the State Lounge, limousines and other SUVs worth Rs 40 million distributed to accomplices, Royal Park villas, other gifts in Portugal, etc.
And above all, that she would also know perfectly those who are involved in this unprecedented scandal at the top of the state, and elsewhere, and who have profited handsomely from it.
* Which shortcut are you talking about?
From this amendment that Pravind Jugnauth, then Minister of Finance, makes to the provisions – through the Finance Bill 2016 – to grant a license to establish an investment bank in Mauritius.
By this amendment, Pravind Jugnauth removes this prerogative from the Bank of Mauritius, an independent institution (which had refused to Sobrinho, let us recall, this license because the source of its funds was doubtful, and that is the least we can say) and gives it to the Financial Services Commission (FSC), an eminently political institution then under the supervision of Roshi Badhain, who was still a minister at the time.
And the FSC grants said license to Sobrinho in a jiffy. I continue. Obviously, Ms. Fakim has an obligation to speak; it has a moral obligation which unfortunately is not part of the “guiding principles” of the regime of the Jugnauth and their associates.
Will she speak? I ardently wish it. The Nation wishes it and the Good demands it. But I don’t think she will talk. I believe the scenario will be as follows: those at the top of the state will tell him: “Shut up about us and we will shut up about you”.
So Mrs. Fakim will shut up and go about her business, whatever it is. But it is certain that she will have to speak in the not very distant future – when Navin Ramgoolam at the head of the next Labor government will establish a commission of inquiry to shed light on this enormous political and financial scandal.
How to explain this constitutional misstep on the part of the President of the Republic? She has been in office since June 2015 and she had to familiarize herself with the exercise of the powers – and the limits of these powers – conferred on her by the Constitution of the Republic.
Bad advice from the “sorcerer’s apprentices” or did she want to pull off a big blow at the level of public opinion to demonstrate that she has nothing to reproach herself for.
.
. knowing that the Government was never going to accept the bet? set up a commission of inquiry? It seems to me that Mrs.
Fakim unfortunately never took the true measure of her position as President of the Republic, that she never understood or assumed the profound solemnity of this post, the duty of height and distance in relation to certain things that this position requires.
For example, this kind of bad taste bouillabaisse between the Presidency, L’Oréal and Planet Earth Institute should have been advised against by her advisers – but you’re probably right, she was perhaps seeking advice from “sorcerer’s apprentices” – can -be the very people behind the suggestion of a commission of inquiry.
I also don’t think the President wanted to strike a media stunt, big or small. She has quite simply committed a constitutional misstep either because she is ignorant of the constitutional provisions relating to the establishment of a commission of inquiry, or the “sorcerer’s apprentices” around her have assured her that she had the right to do so.
And we heard on the radio some of his supposed advisers justify the establishment of this commission of inquiry by defending and extolling its constitutional validity.
Our country has already suffered enough under three years of Jugnauth rule and did not need this episode of tragic farce that we have witnessed in recent weeks.
* Pravind Jugnauth could have overlooked the use of the Platinum Card by Mrs.
Gurib-Fakim, as Sir Anerood most likely would have done since, according to him, the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the President would have been made, which would have spared the Prime Minister the hassle of recent weeks and the presidential affront.
What could have pushed him to make the decision to separate from Mrs. Gurib-fakim? Public pressure or are there things going on politically? It is clear that Pravind Jugnauth would have preferred to see “swept under the carpet” this affair of the use of the Platinum Card by Ms.
Fakim. Furthermore, the fact that Mrs. Fakim reimbursed her expenses is ‘irrelevant’ – what is at issue is not the reimbursement or not. What is in question is the fact that the Head of State used a credit card made available to her by a businessman whose business procedures she facilitated, and whose pleased in writing with the positive outcome of the said steps, and this to make personal expenses.
However, public ethics prohibits her from accepting this credit card – or any other card – from a businessman for whom she has acted as a facilitator (it is a euphemism for being polite) – for any reason. any form of expense.
As soon as the details of this case appeared on social networks, things moved very quickly – with a unanimous cry from the political opposition, including the Labor Party by the voice of Navin Ramgoolam, and from civil society for the President leaves his post.
Pravind Jugnauth then had no choice but to save the furniture – that Mrs. Fakim leave and be silent. Ms. Fakim resisted for a few days and the whole country was waiting for her to speak, to unpack the underside of the Sobrinho affair.
She now decides to keep quiet – probably out of fear of what the other protagonists of the story, in turn, would have to say. . . * The President leaves today, according to her own indications in her letter of resignation.
We also learn that it is the leader of the MSM, not that of the ML, who will make the decision as to the personality that the Government would like to see in the Réduit. We can expect his choice to be eminently political and this will no doubt be dictated by his strategy for the 2019 election. What do you think?
Ivan Collendavelloo, leader of ML, had at the time read in the eyes of Sobrinho the great probity of the latter and had shared it with the public with a smile on his face and with disconcerting conviction.
Would he think that Mauritians are complete idiots? In any case, it seems that Pravind Jugnauth no longer trusts Collendavelloo’s gift of clairvoyance, nor his choices, nor his political judgment. Public rumor has already announced some names to replace Ms. Fakim.
But the choice of the person to occupy the post of President of the Republic is always and, in any case, a political choice – in the hope that the choice of the person in question will tilt in favor of the rulers of this or that other section of the population.
And, in this sense, this choice is therefore always dictated by the upcoming electoral deadline. * In the meantime, it is still the Government which, value of the day, dictates the agenda.
And we don’t see him willing to shoot himself in the foot to embarrass himself. And we do not see the opposition, divided as it is at present, capable of increasing the pressure on the Government to set up a commission of inquiry into the Sobrinho affair, do we? ?
But, in any case, it is always the Government that dictates the agenda – especially when it has about two years left in its mandate and enjoys a comfortable majority in the National Assembly. But to speak of a divided opposition is a bit lapidary. Let’s talk about opposition instead.
The PMSD was part of the government majority and Xavier Duval was Deputy Prime Minister of the Lepep government for the duration of the Sobrinho affair: today, he cannot say that he was not aware of what was going on.
The positions of the PMSD in this case are absolutely not credible. The MMM and the MSM have already been courting each other for some time with a view to an alliance for the next elections.
However, in order to satisfy the small fringe of the electorate that remains, the MMM is obliged to make noise. She does. But it’s also why the MMM is aiming all its artillery at Ms Fakim primarily – while the rot goes much further up the hierarchy of power.
There remains the Labor Party, whose leader, Navin Ramgoolam, demanded – from the first revelations about this affair and without any ambiguity – the departure of Ms.
Fakim and the setting up of a commission of inquiry to shed full light on this disastrous episode in our history. Sir Anerood Jugnauth recently raised the possibility of an MSM-MMM alliance.
And it is said in the political world that the “koz-kozé” had already started even before the Platinum Cards affair broke out. Since the MMM ardently wishes the establishment of a commission of inquiry, do you think that the data has changed since then in the perspective of the leader of the MMM?
You most likely know that the “koz-kozé” between the MMM and the MSM began already in 2017, indeed long before the Platinum card affair. The MMM wishes (ardently, you say so) the establishment of a commission of inquiry because it cannot do otherwise.
He is obliged to satisfy his electorate – at least, what remains of his electorate – but knowing that the said commission of inquiry will not be set up by the Government of Pravind Jugnauth.
To answer your question directly, no, the MMM leader’s perspective has not changed. He is asking for a commission of inquiry knowing that the said commission will not be set up.
He obviously does not want the total discrediting of his future partner, but he would be happy if this Sobrinho affair weakens the MSM enough to make it more vulnerable in partnership negotiations and especially to push it towards early elections.
* We will have noted a change in the position of the Labor Party in relation to the dismissal of Mrs.
Gurib-Fakim, which contrasts with that of the PMSD and the MMM, which have been constant in their attitude vis-à-vis the President . From the start of the crisis, the PTr had called loud and clear for the departure of Ms.
Gurib-Fakim. Shakeel Mohamed had even announced his intention to table a motion of censure against the President, and then the speech was modified… Is it ethno-strategy that took over?
Absolutely not. There has never been and there is no change in the position of the Labor Party in relation to the moral obligation of Ms Gurib-Fakim to leave the Presidency.
Impeachment is the culmination of an institutional process and that is something else. Navin Ramgoolam has said it and said it again publicly: Ms. Gurib-Fakim must leave immediately. But the Labor Party went even further. How ? This Sobrinho affair can be summed up very simply.
Investigators say Sobrinho embezzled $600 million from the Angolan branch of a Portuguese bank and needed to launder that money – put it back into the legal money flow circuit so he could dispose of it legally and freely.
With the suspicions hanging over him and the investigations he is the subject of in six different countries, no bank can and does not want to take the risk of accepting this money, hence Sobrinho’s discovery: to open his own so-called investment to inject his money and thus launder it.
And this is where the Mauritian protagonists come in. And this would concern not only the presidency (which would perhaps only represent the tip of the iceberg), but all those, ministers, deputies, civil servants, heads of institutions and other underlings who facilitated and brought about the steps of Sobrinho.
And, in return, the latter would have been handsomely rewarded by Sobrinho, in money or in other forms, cars, villas, etc. This is why the position of the Labor Party is clear, logical, coherent, moral and patriotic, that is to say
Mrs. Gurib-Fakim must leave (declaration made without any ambiguity by Navin Ramgoolam from the start of the case); the biggest culprits in this affair are still there, untouched for the moment, and it would take a commission of inquiry to unmask them – in other words, that Mrs.
Gurib-Fakim would be the tree behind which the forest of corruption at the top of the state in relation to the Sobrinho affair. This indeed contrasts with the position of the PMSD and the MMM, which have been consistent in their attitude of avoiding scratching the Jugnauth Government.
The PMSD, because it was part of the Jugnauth Government at the time of the events, and the MMM because the MSM makes eyes at it and vice versa. * At this stage, nothing predicts the destabilization of the political power in place.
.
. unless Ms.
Gurib-Fakim holds really compromising information on the links of certain “big guns” with the Sobrinho affair and she decides to do so anyway. speak.
What do you see coming? From this point of view, like Sister Anne, I see nothing coming at the moment. All of Maurice would have liked Mrs. Gurib-Fakim to decide to talk about it, as you say.
But it seems that she has already made her choice: she will be silent. No press conference, no affidavit. I am convinced that Ms. Gurib-Fakim has absolutely damning information for some “big guns” as you call them.
I am also convinced that she was blackmailed – hence the drastic change in her attitude and her decision to shut up and tiptoe away. This is the rule of omerta.
* In the absence of a commission of inquiry into the ramifications of the Sobrinho affair and the connections of Ms.
Gurib-Fakim and other “big guns” with Alvaro Sobrinho, it could be that organized leaks from both parties feed the media and the political debate until the next legislative elections. So much the better for the opposition? Above all, it would be so much the better for public safety and ethics and for Mauritius.
Indeed, it is quite possible and entirely desirable that “whistle blowers” send information to the media on the sudden and unexplained enrichment of certain officials, on the future of the famous villas of Royal Park in Balaclava, on what happened at the Financial Services Commission in the weeks leading up to the granting of the investment banking license to Sobrinho.
But, all in all, we have in front of us a Government which must face what would result from this total ignorance of the principles of good governance and the sense of ethics; and those actions driven by greed and covetousness, which manipulates institutions and laws to satisfy partisan and personal ambitions and cravings.
It turns out that nothing can change the course of events – except the departure of this Government, the dissolution of the National Assembly and the holding of general elections as soon as possible.
Questions relating to the professional entourage of a President, on the need for a President with a minimum of political culture (constitutional, etc.
), on the weight of ethnicity in the choice of a possible holder, the ‘benefits’ and other presidential ‘perks’ have been debated since the outbreak of this crisis at the top of the state.
Should we, in your opinion, review the whole process and criteria for the appointment of the President of the Republic? We have had a President of the Republic for 25 years and this is our fifth President.
The fact that Ms. Gurib-Fakim behaved “improperly” does not mean that the system is bad. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Even if we have the best laws in the world, we will still and always have individuals who break these laws.
We can demand the most rigorous conditions for the appointment of the President of the Republic, but there will always be individuals who will find the means to “cut corners”.
In all the so-called parliamentary systems of government, as in India or Singapore, the President of the Republic always comes from a political party and the consideration of the sociological origin of the person chosen is a reality.
And, in a society like ours, where it is always necessary to seek and establish as much as possible a balance between the different components of society, it is a reality that imposes itself – at least until proof to the contrary. or until that society is so integrated that such considerations are no longer important.
For More News And Analysis About Mauritius Follow Africa-Press
