|
Air
Mauritius
Accountability
cannot be enforced without transparency
Air
Mauritius seems to be in turmoil again. It has been the
prime seat of the existence of a secret fund. A number of
people benefited from it and a criminal case is still
ongoing in relation to this fund. Air Mauritius will always
be reminiscent of the cover up resorted by Paul Berenger,
Sir Anerood Jugnauth, Pravind Jugnauth and all their
associates when they were in government in 2001. On that
fateful day at the end of November 2001 a law was voted to
amend the Constitution to revoke Mrs Indira Manrakhan as
director of the Economic Crime Office (ECO) accompanied by a
law to scrap the law governing ECO. This was done because a
former minister, Jayen Cuttaree was summoned by ECO to
answer allegations made by Gerard Tyack.
It
is well known how vicious the whole cohort of the arrogant
MMM-MSM members was in their crusade against Mrs Manrakhan.
When Paul Berenger speaks of attempted cover-up whenever a
case is brought to light one can only laugh out loud at such
a statement which is nothing more than a big joke. Paul
Berenger should be the last one to ever talk of cover-up. He
considered the note- book of Gerard Tyack in which all the
donations were inscribed as a “carnet la boutique.”
Yet that same notebook is being used by the same Gerard
Tyack to testify in the case that is being tried by the
Intermediate Court.
A
number of matters have cropped with regard to the exact
nature of the relationship of the new boss of Air Mauritius,
Mr Nirvan Veerasamy, with his previous partners all of which
may give rise to a conflict of interest situation. As
usually happens in Mauritius, before a clear-cut picture
emerges and before guilt or a well-founded suspicion is made
out the press, the politicians and most members of the
public would or have already passed judgment adverse to the
person or persons concerned. Paul Berenger is always
accusing others but if he looks at the sequence of events of
his involvement in the Toorab Bissessur case he might be
less cocky.
Until
recently when it was aired that Mrs Manrakhan would be
appointed to ICAC Paul Berenger was levelling charges of
political bias against her. As usual the charges were never
substantiated but what can we expect from a man of Sheikh
Hossen fame. In relation to the illegal gambling case, which
is at its very early stages of investigation, the Leader of
the Opposition has, under the cover of parliamentary
immunity, accused two ministers of being involved. What can
we expect from Nando Bodha who was an accomplice to the
vulgar insults poured on Mrs Manrakhan during the debates on
the constitutional amendments to sack the former ECO
director?
It
is against this background that one needs to shake up the
mentality prevailing when gratuitous allegations are made
and innocent people pilloried. We just witnessed such a
feature in the allegations made by Mrs Savriacooty that led
to the arrest of two suspects. One should ask objective
questions on the furore that has sprung up on the status of
the Managing Director of Air Mauritius? Objective
questioning assumes all its importance in view of the fact
that the questions in Parliament emanated from two members
of the government bench. Suren Dayal has asked questions on
the close links between Captain Savy, Chairman and Executive
of Air Seychelles and Mr Nirvan Veerasamy in relation to
Veling Company. His question reads, "Is the Deputy
Prime Minister aware that one of the co-signatories of the
MOU, namely Captain Savy, is a director of the company in
the name Veling and that the Managing Director of Air
Mauritius is a co-founder of the company and is still a
director on leave? Apparently there is an agreement between
Air Mauritius and Air Seychelles which captain
Savy was a party to and the same Captain Savy was a
cofounder of Veling Company along with Nirvan Veerasamy.
On
the face of it and as the facts are presented, it is made to
appear that Mr Nirvan Veerasamy had something to do or is
deemed to have something to do with the agreement between
Air Seychelles and Air Mauritius. This is not so according
to the Managing Director of Air Mauritius who has stated,
“This agreement had actually been initialled well before
my arrival at the head of Air Mauritius by my predecessor
Megh Pillay who did a wonderful job. I did nothing more than
renew the agreement.” Would the renewal of an agreement
involve the Managing Director in a situation of conflict of
interest? The answer depends on a number of issues and
if’s. If the renewal was a mere formality and he just did
it a matter of course, then no sinister motives must be
attributed to him. Most probably, and the investigation by
ICAC will have to uncover that, the Managing Director got
the approval of the Board of Air Mauritius to renew the
agreement. If he did not go to the Board, he would have to
explain why and the Chairman of Air Mauritius Mr Sanjay
Bhuckory will also have to do some explaining there.
But
this is not all. Mr Nirvan Veerasamy stated that he has
resigned from all companies where he was director when he
assumed duties as Managing Director of Air Mauritius. But he
also added that he intends to resume his directorship when
his contract with Air Mauritius ends. He is also a
shareholder of the companies. The other factor is related to
the brother of Mr Nirvan Veerasamy, Mr Jim Veerasamy who is
a lawyer with the legal firm Fourmentin, Le Quintrec
Veerasamy Corcos and Associates. Jim Veerasamy is the legal
adviser of Air Mauritius. On this issue, the answer given is
that Jim Veerasamy has been the legal adviser for a long
time. The firm McKinsey has also been mentioned, that it had
been chosen for the overhauling of Air Mauritius as well as
the lack of transparency on the sale of aircrafts. To all
this Mr Nirvan Veerasamy answered he has nothing to do with
all the different departments of Air Mauritius including the
one that recruits legal advisers.
On
good governance, UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia
and for the Pacific observes that good governance has eight
major characteristics. It is participatory, consensus
oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective
and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule
of law. It assures that corruption is minimized. According
to that UN body, transparency means that decisions taken and
their enforcement are done in a manner that follows rules
and regulations. It also means that information is freely
available and directly accessible to those who will be
affected by such decisions and their enforcement. It also
means that enough information is provided and that it is
provided in easily understandable forms and media. As for
accountability it states that it is a key requirement of
good governance. Not only governmental institutions but also
the private sector and civil society organizations must be
accountable to the public and to their institutional
stakeholders. Who is accountable to who varies depending on
whether decisions or actions taken are internal or external
to an organization or institution. In general an
organization or an institution is accountable to those who
will be affected by its decisions or actions. Accountability
cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law
There
is nothing objectionable in a person resigning on a
temporary basis from his duties in a company in order to
take on other responsibilities in a major company where
government also has interests. What would be objectionable
is the fact that such information is not imparted to the
company shareholders, controlling and minority and to other
interested parties that is the stakeholders. It is to be
hoped that Nirvan Veerasamy made a full disclosure of his
shareholding in the other companies and that he also
mentioned that he has also the intention of going back to
his previous private duties.
It
is equally to be hoped that he made a full disclosure of the
fact that his brother is the legal adviser of the company of
which he himself is the managing Director. If the Board of Air Mauritius and the
shareholders approved of this, then it is up to them to
decide on the future tenure of Mr Nirvan Veerasamy. If Mr
Nirvan Veerasamy acted in total transparency and was fully
accountable on all his past links with former aviation
companies, and, if he disclosed that his brother was still
the legal adviser of the company and if the shareholders
were happy with this, would that still be good governance?
ICAC will have to probe this further.
When
Minister Xavier Duval takes shelter behind the Companies Act
in order not to answer the questions put to him, he is not
doing the country or the principle of good governance of
which transparency is a major component a favour. Nor is he
giving due credit to the other interested parties who are
the public at large and other stakeholders. Shielding behind
technicalities is not synonymous of good governance.
Raja
Ratnam
|
