Blog: Medpoint sale - Make or Break of a future Prime Minister?

To some it was the scandal of the century, if not the SALE OF THE CENTURY. To others it was the straw that breaks the camels back with already a hefty penalty – five Ministers having resigned and a major Alliance partner virtually forced to jump ship. For the MSM and its Leader and its ever ambitious Leader, it was a trap carefully executed by the Labour Party to strike a killer blow to a major Political challenger for the most coveted position of prime Minister.

The MedPoint Sale (of the century) is fast becoming our local political soap opera but with the difference that it is hardly melodramatic. It has embroiled several of our Institutions into disrepute, including the Presidency. Some of our leading institutions have attracted both praise and criticism at the same time, of course not from the same quarters. It has turned both the population and Party politics into an orgy of perpetual Election fever.

No wonder the MedPoint Sale has raised an endless seam of searching questions for which the sooner we get the answers the better it will be for the country. The leader “actor” (for lack of a better word), in this complex saga, is the former Finance Minister and Leader of the MSM. For him, the Medpoint Saga will be a “Make or Break” outcome. Hence I start off with him with a series of questions that I hope will bring us closer to some real “Lumiere” !

Missier Pravin, explik moi the following:
 
1. Eski CPB qui ti accorde Contract ou bien Cabinet du 18 Juin 2010 ?
 
2. Whatever decisons the cabinet took on 18 June , did the Cabinet authorise/ request you to "débourser les fonds" on the 23rd December 2010, that is before the 1st january 2011, or did you sign the sign the Cheque voluntarily on that date?
 
3. If Dr Beebeejaun and/or MedInvest  does not own 10% shares of MedPoint, how does Conflict of Interest apply to him so as to demand of him to withdraw from the 18th June cabinet Meeting?
 
4. a. On what ground did you judge yourself to have a conflict of interest to withdraw from the cabinet meeting? Was it due to Ownership level in MedPoint or was it due to family relationship with the major MedPoint shareholder, that is, your sister and Brother in Law, Dr Malhotra? Did you declare your interest in WRITING as required under POCA law?

b. How Conflict of Interest apply on the 18th June 2010 and NOT on the 23rd December 2010?

5. As a prominent member of the Jugnauth family, are you aware if Dr Beebeejaun is, in any way, related to the Jugnauths in particular to your sister or to Dr Malhotra through marriages or through any other way?

6. Quote : « C’est grave que pendant qu’une enquête est en cours, le directeur de l’Icac intervient publiquement. Il ne faut pas faire fausse route » Is there any prohibition in law, for anyone (including the ICAC Director to speak/comment on an ongoing inquiry?

7. By contrast, when legal proceedings become ACTIVE, the matter becomes SUB JUDICE and CONTEMPT OF COURT RULES APPLY! In criminal cases, LEGAL PROCEEDINGS become ACTIVE, when a person is ARRESTED OR CHARGED OR SUMMONED ETC, which is clearly the case for you.
 
8. Before and after your arrest, there are ample evidence and situations where you could be accused of Contempt of Court. Furthermore, many other persons, including, de surcroit prominent Lawyers, have discussed your criminal case, in newspapers and on radios. At no time, have you or the DPP raised any objection within the constraints of SUB JUDICE !
 
9. You have all along insisted on the Cabinet Memo of the 18th June in order to prove your innocence. Surely as a Lawyer yourself, you should know that the difference between being INVESTIGATED BY ICAC (gathering of evidence) and being TRIED BY A COURT OF LAW.

Whatever evidence you may have and irrespective of their sources (cabinet meetings and others), will only be relevant in a COURT OF LAW where the actual TRIAL WILL TAKE PLACE and NOT AT L'ICAC.

By all means, it is your right, to ask the Court (in due course) for access to any possible source of evidence to prove your innocence. It will be for the COURT AND ONLY THE COURT to entertain and authorise such request.

10. Now on Responsibilities of a Minister of Finance: (some Thoughts)

Normally in strictly Commercial transactions, the person making a Payment (that is the authorised person signing the Cheque) will carry out some BASIC VERIFICATIONS before he/she actually signed the Cheque. Examples of such scrutiny are:

a. The Cheque Amount and the Invoice amount tally.
b. The Invoice Items are the Items actually ordered according to the company Purchase Order.
c. The Goods/ services were received, signed delivery note etc attached.
d. For a major contract or project, for example: the job / project has been completed according to specifications agreed and payments are being made according to agreed terms. Etc, Etc.

11. In the case of a major tender, irrespective of who selected the successful bidder and whose responsibilities it was, the “Paying Authority” (in this case the Finance Ministry) must demonstrate utmost assiduousness to ensure that no mistakes (human or otherwise) were committed AND ABOVE ALL, BECAUSE IT IS PUBLIC MONEY, that there were NO FRAUDULENT ACTIONS ANYWHERE ALONG THE PROCESS.
 
Basic things to check in a Tender exercise and payments, would be:

· That all tender documents from Bidders were properly sealed and complied with any deadline.

· That no bidder had knowledge of other bidder’s details and offer Price.

· All shortlisted bidders had FULLY COMPLY WITH ALL TENDER specifications

· The selection Panel had themselves ensure compliance with any possible Conflict of Interests requirements.

·  Etc etc

Where a selection decision was made where there were variances (of any kind) from Tender specifications, or where there were exceptional circumstances to justify their decision, the Selection panel MUST PROVIDE EXPLANATORY NOTES ATTACHED TO THEIR DECISION to be passed to the “PAYING AUTHORITY”.

I can think of at least 3 EXPLANATORY NOTES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ATTACHED IN THE MEDPOINT PURCHASE.

1. Departure from  area specification, ( 3900 vs 4500 sq metres)

2. The jump from Rs75 million to Rs 125 million (irrespective of who requested and authorise a second evaluation). Someone must be in a position to explain why first it was evaluated at a lower price, then at a higher price. Was there a genuine mistake by a Quantity Surveyor, for example?

3. Why Second Hand Equipments were added to the purchase against specifications requirements and why were there these equipments NOT TESTED and BOUGHT AS SEEN?

It would transpire that NO CHECKS or SCRUTINY OF ANY KIND WAS CARRIED OUT BY ANYONE IN AT LEAST 2 MINISTRIES AND THE CPB.

No one is suggesting that The Health Minister or the Minister of Finance should personally carry out these checks himself. Their subordinate, PAS, PS and advisers should ensure that this had been done and present the Ministers with a check list of what has actually been verified. The least we should expect is that the Ministers ASKED if CHECKS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT.

It will equally important to know if any Officer at the Ministry Of Finance brought to the attention of the Minister, the significance (to the State coffers) of concluding the purchase of MedPoint before the 1st January 2011.