[Paul Lismore] When L'express jumps to a weird conclusion based on a misunderstanding of the English language...

I must confess I was surprised to read an article by Karen Walter, a journalist who often writes good, accurate stuff, when she confuses a basic narrative in the African Bank of Development's press release with a statement of fact which is not factual at all.

Let me explain:

She asserts that " Alors que chaque protagoniste  impliqué dans le projet de réaménagement de St-Louis essaye de tirer son épingle du jeu, la BAD est est on ne peut plus claire dans son communiqué. L’enquête de son bureau de lutte anti-corruption concerne les deux appels d’offres auxquels a participé BWSC pour le projet St-Louis II, soit en 2014 sous le gouvernement de Navin Ramgoolam et 2015 sous celui des Jugnauth, père et fils." 

She provides as proof of BAD " ne peut etre plus claire" on a basic misunderstanding of ONE line in BAD's press release which is nothing more than a simple statement of facts, that there were two tendering processes for St Louis: one in 2014, which was rescinded because of apparently 80 major deviations from the tender document by BWSC, which made their tender ''non responsive"...and one in 2015, where the chihuahua with his nominees/mistress in the Central Procurement Board and IRP approved the bid from BWSC despite it containing the same 80 major deviations that the previous Central Procurement Board had refused to accept"

That one line from BAD is simply this: "  In 2014 and 2015, Burmeister & Wain participated in tenders for the redevelopment of the Saint Louis power plant in Mauritius, a project financed by the Bank."

Now, no one could possibly argue with this as it is clearly a statement of fact, that BWSC had made one bid in 2014, which was turned down, and one in 2015 which was quickly approved in January 2016 following a certificat d'urgence by Chihuahua's nominee as DG of the CEB, Gerard Hebrard, and which was quickly approved by Darling Christelle Sohun of the "Independent" Review Panel...

It is clear to every sentient human being that the inquiry by BWSC and the BAD's decision to debar BWSC for 21 months is based entirely on the second tender.

I therefore fail to understand how a simple narrative can be misinterpreted as "L’enquête de son bureau de lutte anti-corruption concerne les deux appels d’offres auxquels a participé BWSC pour le projet St-Louis II, soit en 2014 sous le gouvernement de Navin Ramgoolam et 2015 sous celui des Jugnauth, père et fils."

Logic and common sense tells you that this 'l'enquete' can only refer to a bid whose success depended entirely on the shenanigans of our serviteurs du pays.

Logic tells you that it cannot refer to the 2014 bid, simply because not only was it unsuccessful but because the Central Procurement Board rightly pinpointed 80 major deviations and therefore rejected it. Logic tells you that you do not fer l'enquete on a bid that has failed because its weaknesses and abuses were highlighted. Basic common sense tells you that l'enquete has to necessarily investigate the matters that led to a bid with the same deviations that were rejected in November 2014 to be now successful in January 2016!

That misinterpretation by L'Express would be seen by cynical people as an attempt to 'noyer le poisson' and to spread the guilt that falls squarely on the Chihuahua's chops onto the 2014 government  also. The facts prove otherwise, I am afraid. I again say: Why fer l'enquete on a bid that was rightly rejected because of 80 major deviations? Just because BAD mentions in one line as an explanation to the background to this sorry saga that " in 2014 and 2015, Burmeister & Wain participated in tenders for the redevelopment of the Saint Louis power plant in Mauritius" this can by no stretch of the imagination lead to the conclusion that the 2014 mob was subject to the BWSC investigation too! It just does not make any sense at all.

The rest of the article is an excellent chronology of the salient developments since 2014 of BWSC's involvement with St Louis Gate. Such a pity that the second paragraph gives a false, distorted representation of the truth, esp as it is based on an erroneous understanding of the English Language.

Having said this, Karen Walter remains one of our very few decent journalists.