The Affidavit as a Political and Legal Weapon: Analysing the Menlo Park/MIC Dispute

Qs & As

By Lex

The legal battle between Menlo Park Ltd. and the Mauritius Investment Corporation (MIC) has escalated from a commercial dispute into a matter of significant public and political concern following the filing of explosive affidavits. Directors Mary Queenie Adam and Stéphane Adam have sworn to a pre-election “secret deal” involving political figures, public funding, and alleged payoffs, effectively transforming a civil matter into a potential high-stakes corruption inquiry. Lex’s analysis examines the precise legal and strategic motivations for using a sworn affidavit to launch such serious allegations, the subsequent obligations placed upon Mauritian investigating authorities like the CCID and the Anti-Money Laundering Unit, and the severe legal and professional consequences — for the parties and their legal counsel — should these claims be proven false. Furthermore, it addresses how the legal system is designed to process conflicting claims made under oath and the specific role of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in initiating independent action.

* Affidavits filed by Menlo Park Ltd directors Mary Queenie Adam and Stéphane Adam allege a pre-election “secret deal involving political figures, MIC funding, and a promised payoff to a politician’s son if the Alliance du Changement won. It is understood that an aggrieved party might choose to swear an affidavit rather than immediately report an alleged offence to the police for strategic or procedural reasons. What might have motivated Menlo Park to take the affidavit route?

If a report is made to the police and it turns out that the complaint is not substantiated, the declarant risks prosecution for false denunciation in writing. However, by detailing acts of impropriety, the person swearing the affidavit causes embarrassment to the person targeted.

* Strategically, what is the legal purpose of submitting a “tell-all” affidavit describing an alleged corruption deal instead of merely denying the opposing party’s fraud allegations?

A battle of affidavits is like a boxing match where each party is dealing blows and the opposing party tries to parry these blows and respond in kind.

* What legal steps are the Anti-Money Laundering Unit or the CCID required to take once they receive an affidavit alleging serious offences such as money laundering and corruption against public or high-profile figures?

The investigating authorities should normally summon all parties named in the different affidavits and question them. Why this has not been done remains a mystery, and the public is asking questions about this state of affairs.

* Can an aggrieved party in Mauritius use an affidavit to lodge a formal criminal complaint directly before a magistrate or the court  —  effectively bypassing police discretion not to investigate or prosecute, or when the police appear unresponsive or refuse to register a case?

The police will not act on the basis of an affidavit only. The police would require a formal complaint before embarking on any investigation, including summoning or arresting the suspect.

* Given that both Menlo Park Ltd and the MIC have filed affidavits against each other, how do Mauritian courts assess and reconcile conflicting factual claims made under oath at the preliminary stage before a full trial takes place?

A court of law is not concerned with affidavits that are not before it. If there is a formal complaint to the police or the FCC and an investigation is carried out and a prosecution is launched, then in court the witness cannot produce the affidavit as evidence of his version. He should give oral testimony and be cross-examined. He may be referred to the affidavit to explain any fact or be contradicted if his oral testimony differs from the allegations in the affidavit.

* Given the seriousness of the corruption allegations made in the affidavits  —  suggesting possible misuse of public funds and political influence  —  at what stage and under what laws (such as the Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023 or the Criminal Code) could the Director of Public Prosecutions initiate an independent judicial inquiry or a criminal investigation beyond the civil dispute between Menlo Park Ltd and the MIC?

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) only becomes involved after an investigation is complete and a file is submitted for review. The DPP does not handle civil disputes between parties.

* As an affidavit imposes a legal obligation of truthfulness, what are the consequences if the affidavit is found to be false or intended to mislead?
A person who swears a false affidavit is liable to criminal prosecution.

* Can the legal practitioner who drafted or witnessed a demonstrably false affidavit face professional sanctions or liability, even if they claim they acted solely on their client’s instructions?
As a rule, a legal practitioner is generally not liable to criminal action for acting on a client’s instructions. Liability arises only if the practitioner knowingly and intentionally assists their client in committing an offence.

A legal adviser can be liable for drafting an affidavit with false facts if they knew, or were willfully blind to the fact, that the information was false and they failed to correct the record.

While an adviser is generally expected to draft based on client instructions, they have an overriding duty to the court and must not assist in presenting false evidence. This duty prevents them from acting with “willful blindness or conscious avoidance of facts” that suggest the client is lying.

* If the affidavits from Menlo Park Ltd or the MIC are proven false and harmful, what civil liabilities, penalties, or shareholder actions could the directors face for breaching their fiduciary and governance duties?

Shareholders are generally not personally liable for a director’s false affidavit, as their liability is typically limited to the amount of their investment. This is because the director and the company are distinct legal entities. The director, however, can be held personally liable, both criminally and civilly, for the false statement.

While shareholders usually face only indirect consequences (such as a drop in investment value due to the company’s losses), they may be held personally liable in limited circumstances, such as:
– If they were personally involved in the director’s misconduct or fraud.
– If a court decides to “pierce the corporate veil.” This is a legal action where a court disregards the corporate entity and holds its shareholders or directors personally responsible for the company’s debts and actions.

* Can a newspaper be held liable for defamation if it unknowingly publishes a false statement contained in an affidavit  —  for instance, those filed in the Menlo Park/MIC case  —  even when the publication is made in public interest?

A newspaper publishing a false affidavit is exposed to legal risks, primarily defamation claims. While the individual who swore the affidavit is subject to criminal liability (e.g., for perjury), the newspaper’s own liability depends on its level of fault, specifically its knowledge of the statement’s falsity and its intent in publishing the information.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 17 October 2025