Blog: ICAC & Medpoint - Putting the cart before the horse !

Does ICAC, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, really need « solid proof » before summoning someone to appear ?

ICAC’s job is mainly to investigate allegations of corruption, and calling witnesses or suspected parties is not supposed to rest on « solid proof » that those persons are guilty of any wrongdoing, although any incriminating conclusions and recommendations have to be so based. Otherwise, one would be putting the cart before the horse. However, ICAC must be satisfied that the complaint is one which has to do with corruption before initiating an investigation and deciding who to summon. In so doing, ICAC must also be satisfied that the person in question is likely to make valuable contribution to the investigation in helping them arrive at proper conclusions. More often than not, what constitutes solid proof is divulged upon and/or concluded after investigation and cross-examination and documentary evidence. Proof may also be derived from the conduct of the parties, from omission, commission, and so on. Is ICAC not interested to know PM Navin Ramgoolam’s role in the Medpoint scandal?  Did he or did he not know that the purchase price of Medpoint was increased from Rs75m to Rs145m? Was he consulted by his Minister of Finance or other responsible parties on the issue? Did he agree for the government to pay from public funds the Rs145m, which sum included unused medical equipment to the tune of Rs20m when the certified accounts for Medpoint for the 2007-08 exercise gave a valuation of Rs2.1m after depreciation ? (l’Express 13 July2011 - « Parlement : Reza Uteem retire une question adressée à Maya Hanoomanjee sur MedPoint »). Has there been any form of conflict of interests and what safeguards have been but in place to avoid any form of corruption? What is his responsibility and accountability in this entire affair? Surely, ICAC should be more than interested to establish those facts in order to arrive at proper conclusions even if the Leader of the Opposition Paul Bérenger had not made allegations that it was PM Navin Ramgoolam who initiated the second valuation which turned out to be very much in favour of the owners of Medpoint. Also, ICAC should scrutinise this valuation since it allegedly contains the cost of a replacement building instead of the present existing building. If so, the government would have purchased a building which does not exist. For those reasons, it is felt that ICAC should have sought the freezing of the purchase money until this matter is resolved. There may even be a case to rescind the contract altogether.

As far as Paul Bérenger is concerned, in my view, he is under obligation to provide ICAC with all the information he detains on this matter as well as his sources, bearing in mind that the Chief Government Valuer Yodhun Bissessur of the Valuation Office, which falls under the Ministry of Finance, has not yet revealed who gave him instructions to proceed to a the second valuation of Rs145m. At the same time, ICAC should summon Navin Ramgoolam to hear his version and to provide further pertinent information. When the Director of ICAC Anil Kumar Ujodha told Radio Plus in an interview on 12 July 2011 that the decision to summon PM Ramgoolam « dépendra de la teneur de la déposition de Paul Bérenger », and that ICAC cannot summon someone unless there are « des preuves solides » (Ref. Défi), he cannot prevent people from wondering if he is not really trying to find a way out for the PM to avoid him any form of embarrassment like we witnessed when Tony Blair was questioned on the bombing of Iraq. Also, one cannot help wondering if the Director of ICAC was well-advised to give such an interview when the investigation is in full swing. ICAC is not in any position to know what the Prime Minister will or will not say. He may tell ICAC that he is the one responsible, after all. He may even ‘confess’ to certain matters; who knows? 

Given the nature and the circumstances surrounding the government’s purchase of Medpoint, both the PM and his Minister of Finance should to be questioned on the Medpoint scandal and their respective roles established irrespective of what the Leader of the Opposition may or may not have said. Ignorance should not be allowed to be used as an excuse. It is only then that ICAC would be in a position to decide whether there is or there is no sufficient proof against them and/or others and make its recommendations accordingly. Politicians in government wield so much power, often abused, that, as the British PM David Cameron stressed in Parliament today (13 July 2011), they should be subject to even greater scrutiny. It follows that bodies set up to investigate corruption should not find excuses not to call any of them to account.