Paul Lismore


Rédigé par Paul Lismore le Dimanche 13 Janvier 2019

Yes, I am putting my head on the scaffold again by repeating what I have been saying ever since the Medpoint scandal became public: the charge under section 13(ii)of POCA simply does not apply to PJ in this case.

I have noticed the rather sad elucubrations of many individuals who start their comments with " Tou le tan mo ti dire sa" despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever to support that rather outlandish flight of fantasy.

I will reproduce the posts I wrote on the matter on the day the magistrates made their decision, a judgement which was hailed by many zavokas, including some 'tenors du barreau' as very comprehensive and well thought out...views that magically changed soon afterwards.

The points that I had previously raised were put rather succinctly by Clare Montgomery, Q.C. at the appeal hearing at our Supreme Court.

She said, according to a newspaper report " «By no stretch of the English language can the reallocation of funds represent an interest to the company (MedPoint).» Elle explique que «reallocation is a mere administrative step which matters only to government». Elle poursuit, soulignant que «allocation and reallocation was already decided when appellant (PJ) intervened»." I had written this the day the magistrates' judgement was made public: " 

" 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 led by Ramgoolam 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 it is on record that 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.


Ergo, PJ had NOT participated in decision making, despite the magistrates 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."

I continued at the time with " 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 Ramgoolam's 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?"

We now know that ICAC has done what it always does best under the leadership of our chuttur ka mou: muddy the waters, endless prevarications, pick and choose which dossier to really investigate (depending on who the PM is...) and which dossiers to etidier until the end of time (again depending on who the PM is).

It is now a cesspit of cover ups, of taking orders from politicians in government, of doing what it can for 'nou bann', and of paying lip service to the real fight against corruption.

Its intervention just before the Privy Council hearing is shameful and I really hope that the Privy Council will come down hard on this incredible volte face of chuttur ka mou and the stupid, useless organisation he leads at great expense to the taxpayer. I wrote this at the time:

" 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...."

Despite ICAC's reckless intervention which rather proves the point that the maha soucerres are invariably the ones who cause the most damage to their political idols, I still expect the Privy Council to rule in Pravin Jugnauth's favour on Tuesday, or whenever the decision is made. This case simply comes nowhere near Section 13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

And, no, I have not suddenly become a fan of PJ. I am writing the above, again based on the facts of the case, same as I have done on many other cases, including those of people who i don't like.

Likes or dislikes of anyone must never obstruct our desire to see justice done. In this case, Pravin Jugnauth clearly suffered an injustice.

Dimanche 13 Janvier 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.