Menu

Paul Lismore

[Paul Lismore] THE DOMAH COMMISSION ON BRITAM: A BURLESQUE, DISTASTEFUL ATTEMPT TO HIDE THE TRUTH BY EXPLOITING ARCHAIC AND ANACHRONISTIC LAWS


Rédigé par Paul Lismore le Jeudi 21 Mars 2019

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, 1808)



Let me first of all introduce you to the Commissions of Inquiry Act, (1944!!) which seems to be obsessing the minds of Domah and his 2 stooges to such an extent that they are using it as their preferred avenue for stopping the man who can shed some real light on the true value of Britam from testifying.

All Commissioners are required by the First Schedule of that rather antiquated law to swear on oath that they "will faithfully, fully, impartially, and to the best of (my)ability discharge the trust and perform the duties devolving upon me by virtue of the commission."

You do not have to be a supporter of this government, or of the opposition, or of Dawood Rawat, or of any sixieme fail zourlanus to understand that hitherto, this Domah Commission has failed abysmally in its sworn duty to perform its duties faithfully, fully, or impartially. You only have to be a decent human being who abhors any injustice and who knows the real value of the principle of Rule of Law in any self respecting democracy to come to that conclusion.

With regards to the 'best of their ability' part of the oath, I shall leave that for you to decide on the extent of their ability and how limited it seems to be...

Vreman ena bez dan sa ggt pays la! If the 1944 Commissions of Inquiry Act is not sufficient to scrape the barrel, well the wonderful SLO and assorted zavokas and judges can fall back on the one that is a year younger, the 1945 Courts Act in order to make us swallow what is clearly unpalatable...unless if you are such an arselicker that you would swallow any shit that is placed in front of you.

" Le représentant du State Law Office (SLO) estime que la Commission of Enquiry Act ne prévoit aucune déposition légale pour la visioconférence." How fucking learned and judicious of him to resort to something enacted in 1945, when black and white films were all the rage, to tell us that 'Sorry, la loi pa dire ki kapav fer visioconference! " Next, he will tell us that the proceedings cannot be recorded because, eh la loi pa expliker ki apel ene tape recorder!"

The bloody things did not exist in 1945, but what did exist is the same common sense and fairness that we assume these commissioners and learned people are blessed with today, and which would compel anyone with any decency and sense of justice to allow video conference, testimony and cross examination via Skype, etc... In the same way that magistrates have allowed the use of modern technology in the corruption trial against Chady and Maunthoorah...or doesn't the Courts Act apply to them? Perhaps the lawyers of those two could now use this as precedence for an application to throw out all the evidence of the 2 Dutchmen in the Boskalis trial, which would immediately release the two from those charges...

" Me Ivan Jean Louis a cité la Courts Act pour soutenir que la déposition de Dawood Rawat pourrait entraîner des problèmes de légalité." Eh, bousser fesse do! Why don't you just come out and say exactly what is the purpose for these despairing acts of saving the sinking ship, that everything is being done to stop Dawood Rawat from giving the evidence that will show us the true value of Britam?

Which will show us clearly that we have been short changed by at least Rs 10 billion rupees (a very conservative estimate, but I am sure Dawood Rawat will have the right figures, and therein lies the problem for this government and for its Commission..).


So, the learned chaps want Dawood Rawat to return to Mauritius in order to be allowed the privilege of giving evidence to a Commission of Inquiry apparently designed to find out the true value of a bank created by him. Now, if you were in his shoes, would you return?

Please spare me the nonsense of the zombies who have learned the art of typing with the same one finger they usually shove up their arseholes for inspiration, and who think that " Kifer to p kassiett dan la France?" is the height of intellectual creativity.

No sane person would return to this fucking place that many refer to as an etat de droit, where the law is what rich, powerful, well connected, and corrupt people make it what they want it to be.

What annoyed me more than anything else was the sight of Gavin Glover, Dawood Rawat's lawyer, being all meek and gentle and 'civilised' when he should have been shouting from the roof tops about the sheer injustice of it all; about how a Commission of Inquiry is turning out to be nothing more than an insalubrious launderette where the dirty lamoresse of thieving bastards can be hidden from public view; and where all principles of propriety and decency and professionalism and impartiality have long since been discarded. Grow a pair, man! And represent the gross injustices suffered by your client with the vigour and intransigence they demand!

If Domah and his merry little mob continue to play this dirty game of playing footsie with our sense of morality and fairness and do everything they can to stop Dawood Rawat from exercising his constitutional right to be allowed to speak, then I am afraid the only advice I have for him is this: Start a You Tube campaign where you film yourself telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...a concept that seems alien to this waste of space of a Commission.

Let the people hear what these bozos are stopping you from doing, and let the people decide who the real thieves and their apologists really are.

They do tie themselves up in Gordian knots when they try to deceive us in such a cavalier manner, don't they?

Jeudi 21 Mars 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.