Menu

Paul Lismore

[Paul Lismore] "MO TI KONER LI POU GAGNE SO CASE! PRAVIN NOU MARI!"....


Rédigé par Paul Lismore le Lundi 25 Février 2019



...will be the cry of an army of soucerres/roder bouttes/copy/pasters, and a huge number of people who love any attention they can get by any means possible. I do not recall many of them voicing any opinions about Medpoint or how the charge against Pravin Jugnauth, never mind the judgement of the Intermediary Court, was not only flawed but doomed to failure; that section 13(2) of POCA simply did not apply to him, and that despite all the clear scandal that Medpoint symbolises, with its criminal and grossly inflated valuation and the whole manner of its sale, it should not cloud our view about a man's guilt over something that he clearly was not responsible for.

Almost everyone stayed quiet, including the gogotologues/zourlanus, and assorted serviteurs du pays, and those who did venture an opinion had already decided that he was guilty, not because of the merits of the case, but because of their own prejudices and political opinions about the Jugs.

I wrote this on 1st July 2015, shortly after the verdict of the Intermediate Court....and it looks like the Privy council's judgement today is quite close to what I had written:

" I can't be the only one to take the view that the judgement simply does not make any sense, legally or rationally. It is completely perverse and ignores all the crucial points in the Medpoint saga: that this was a project by a government when PJ was still in opposition and when he had nothing to do with it. When he joined the government, he still had nothing to do with it as he refused to take part in any cabinet discussions on the Medpoint issue apart from implementing a cabinet decision which he was duty bound to do. In other words, the decision had already been taken by the cabinet, and Pravin Jugnauth took no part in those deliberations.

THE REALLOCATION OF FUNDS WAS THE LOGICAL FOLLOW UP TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CABINET DECISION. Ergo, PJ had NOT participated in decision making, despite the magistrate finding rather incongruously that "« Accused has beyond reasonable doubt participated in decision making »." 
! The magistrate has ignored all of that and chosen instead to obsess over the final act of this sorry saga: signing the cheque. 

This is akin to the victim being condemned for being in the firing range of a sharpshooter...The whole judgement is perverse, irrational, and some would say, wholly contrary to the elementary rules of natural justice.

How many times was Pravin Jugnauth supposed to declare that there was a conflict of interests in the Medpoint case? He had already declared it before the decision was made by the cabinet and everyone with even one brain cell in his/her head knew about his relationship with the Malhotras.

So, having declared his interest right at the beginning, was he supposed to reiterate that point each and every time Medpoint was mentioned? How stupid! A fair minded and well informed common man (and as you know, I can be very common...) would also be entitled to conclude that this judgement is a miscarriage of justice in that it takes an extremely narrow view of the whole case and came to its findings based only on the final installment of a long process which started way before the accused had even joined the government.

The judgement is flawed because it completely minimises, even ignores the major principle of any democracy regarding collective cabinet responsibility and the sacrosanct duty of ministers and civil servants carrying out all cabinet decisions.

The cheque did not float out of the ozone layer; it came about following extensive cabinet meetings during which another shareholder, Rashid Beebeejaun, took part in the discussions that Pravin Jugnauth voluntarily chose to abstain from....

"La signature de l’ex-ministre des Finances est donc suffisante pour le déclarer coupable, est-il souligné." So, what should a minister do if faced with a clear cabinet decision to purchase something?

Tell the PM and the cabinet to go fuck themselves? Or does he put the cabinet decision into practice, as all cabinet members are required to do?

Those who are rejoicing over this verdict are doing so not on the basis of the facts of the case but because of their own personal /political feelings towards the accused. I have read the judgement twice now, and it alarms me that the title 'learned' is given to anyone with a LLB degree....

...But it really alarms me that the magistrates decided that the final act in a long sequence of events means that the person is guilty. If signing a cheque which validates the decision of a full cabinet (including that of shareholder Beebeejaun) becomes a criminal offence, then surely all the cabinet members who discussed the matter and made the crucial decision to buy Medpoint are equally guilty. And what about ICAC, those wonderful fighters against corruption?

Are they not complicit in this so called illegal act of Pravin Jugnauth too?

How can they on the one hand accuse PJ of corruption/conflict of interests and on the other hand allow the Jugnauths who were the main owners of Medpoint to grab all the money that followed from this allegedly corrupt act?

Why did they 'forget' to continue their embargo on the funds earmarked for the purchase of Medpoint? Remember, this happened last year when the MSM was out of government and the country was being ruled by Ramgoolam, ably supported by his partner, Berenger. Can anyone pinpoint to me the logic in that?

More to the point: if Pravin Jugnauth is guilty of this crime, then the money has to be considered as Proceeds of crime.

How much has Beebeejaun benefited as a minor shareholder of Medpoint?

And will the magistrates now ask for the restitution of that money, which their decision today has turned it into proceeds of crime?

Good luck with that! haha!"

Lundi 25 Février 2019

Nouveau commentaire :

Règles communautaires

Nous rappelons qu’aucun commentaire profane, raciste, sexiste, homophobe, obscène, relatif à l’intolérance religieuse, à la haine ou comportant des propos incendiaires ne sera toléré. Le droit à la liberté d’expression est important, mais il doit être exercé dans les limites légales de la discussion. Tout commentaire qui ne respecte pas ces critères sera supprimé sans préavis.