“The Mamy Ravatomanga case will not be a litmus test for the FCC at this stage”

‘The true test will occur when the case reaches the court, if indeed it does’

* ‘Whether or not a Freedom of Information Act is enacted, the FCC’s work appears to be reasonably transparent’

By Lex

Set against the backdrop of high-profile challenges — including the ongoing investigation into Malagasy businessman Mamy Ravatomanga and the controversy involving a former Commissioner — the Financial Crimes Commission’s (FCC) pledge to operate “without fear or favour” is currently being tested by deep-seated public scepticism inherited from past agencies. The following analysis explores the crucial questions facing the FCC: Do the benefits of centralized power truly outweigh the risks to the separation of powers? How can the agency secure genuine political autonomy?

* The FCC was created as the apex agency, unifying the functions of the ICAC, the Asset Recovery Investigation Division, and the Integrity Reporting Services Agency. Critics have raised concerns about the concentration of investigation, asset recovery, and prosecution functions in a single body—all the more so in a climate where the separation of powers and institutional independence are already under scrutiny. Are these concerns valid?

The FCC, established under the Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023 (FCC Act), stands as Mauritius’s key agency, dedicated to the detection, investigation, and prosecution of a spectrum of financial crimes, including corruption, money laundering, fraud, and drug financing.

While it appears, the FCC has very wide-ranging powers, placing all financial crimes under one institution is generally welcomed. Prior to the current FCC, there were instances of jurisdictional conflict between the various institutions that shared power over financial crime matters.

Mauritius is a small country, and we must be cautious about imposing oversight on independent institutions. The FCC is in a different category as an investigation body, and a parliamentary committee provides oversight, except for its specific investigations and operational decisions.

Political Influence and Integrity

* Another core criticism often levied against anti-corruption agencies (like the former ICAC) and now the FCC is their perceived lack of genuine independence from political influence, particularly when their heads are political nominees. This fear of political interference is a major source of concern over their integrity and ability to act “without fear or favour.” How can such bodies ensure real autonomy and public trust in their operations under such conditions?

The Acting Director General has repeatedly stated that nothing and no one will stop the FCC from fulfilling its mission of combating financial crimes. The proof of this determination is to be found in the volume of cases and arrests made since the new government came to power. This is often presented as an indication that the FCC is allowed to work independently and that there is no political interference, or risk thereof.

The FCC’s position is clear when it states: “At the heart of our mission lies a commitment to safeguarding Mauritius’ financial integrity and fostering a culture of good governance. With the FCC leading the charge, we are poised to confront and combat financial crimes head-on, ensuring a fair and just society for all. In the discharge of its functions and exercise of its powers, the FCC is not under the direction or control of any person or authority’”

Transparency and Public Scrutiny

* The public debate has also highlighted the need for greater transparency, such as through a Freedom of Information Act, to help mitigate the risk of political targeting by such powerful bodies and to monitor any attempt to suppress investigations into high-profile political figures — a perception fuelled by past controversies surrounding the FCC’s predecessor institutions. How do you respond to that?

Detailed information about those arrested is already often seen in the media, sometimes with significant segments of the ongoing investigation being revealed. Whether or not a Freedom of Information Act is enacted, the FCC’s work appears to be reasonably transparent. Of course, the FCC cannot be expected to divulge its entire investigation strategy, as doing so might compromise the investigation.
However, the FCC should periodically inform the public of the status of ongoing investigations and the number of cases that have been referred to the DPP.

Private Sector Corruption and Compliance

* The FCC Act makes private sector corruption an offence and penalizes companies that fail to have “adequate procedures” in place. What exactly does the term ‘adequate procedures’ mean in Mauritius, and what is the minimum compliance framework to meet this standard and establish a defence?

Under the FCCA, there is an obligation on legal entities to ensure they have adequate procedures in place to prevent the commission of corruption, money laundering, fraud, and other ancillary offences. Legal entities will be expected to implement appropriate procedures and controls to ensure their internal processes and systems are robust enough to flag any potential situation of non-compliance with the FCCA.

Scope of Unexplained Wealth Powers

* What are the scope and limits of the FCC’s powers regarding Unexplained Wealth investigations, and what standard of proof is required from individuals or companies to justify the source of their assets?

Under the FCCA, the FCC has broad powers to investigate financial crimes and related predicate offences. The FCC has the power to address a wide range of offences, including corruption, drug trafficking and financing, terrorism financing, fraud, and other illicit activities that threaten the nation’s financial security and stability. The FCC is equipped with advanced technical proficiency in various fields such as forensic accounting, financial analysis, money trail investigations, asset tracing and recovery, and dismantling sophisticated financial schemes.

The Ravatomanga Case as a Litmus Test

* The FCC’s handling of the Mamy Ravatomanga case has been publicly denounced by his lawyers for alleged procedural and legal irregularities. They have maintained their client’s innocence and questioned the legality of the entire inquiry. Could the Ravatomanga case become a litmus test for the FCC?

The Mamy Ravatomanga case will not be a litmus test for the FCC at this stage. The true test will occur when the case reaches the court, if indeed it does.

Everything will depend on the charges and the evidence available, either here or in Madagascar, to establish money laundering or other financial crimes.

Junaid Fakim Controversy and Institutional Confidence

* One major controversy raised by this case involves former FCC Commissioner Junaid Fakim, who was subsequently arrested. The FCC issued a public statement reaffirming its commitment to remain “unshakeable” amid alleged attempts at destabilization and disinformation. How might this episode affect public confidence in the FCC’s ability to act “with integrity, without fear or favour”?

To date, Mr Fakim is presumed innocent. Whether he acted unethically or criminally remains to be seen. It is to his credit that he chose to step down in order not to bring opprobrium upon the FCC. The inappropriate conduct of one FCC officer cannot undermine the entire edifice of the Commission.

Legal Challenge to the Acting DG’s Mandate

* Mr Ravatomanga’s lawyers argue that Acting Director Tritudeo Dawoodarry’s authority lapsed when his initial contract expired on Sep 10, 2025, rendering all subsequent actions in this case invalid. Attorney General Gavin Glover refuted this, noting that Mr. Dawoodarry was reappointed two days later, maintaining that his position and chain of command remain legally sound. What is the likelihood that the legal challenge to M. Dawoodarry’s mandate will succeed in court? If the challenge succeeds, what is the legal fallout for all FCC actions taken during that disputed period?

Section 28 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act stipulates that
(1) Where an enactment confers a power or imposes a duty to make an appointment or to constitute or establish any board, tribunal, commission, committee or similar body, the person having the power or duty may also – (a) remove, suspend, dismiss or revoke the appointment of, and reappoint or reinstate, any person appointed in exercise of the power of duty.
Section 10 of the FCC Act provides for the appointment of the Director General. Once his tenure/mandate lapsed, he was reappointed, and this power is contained in Section 28 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act. The court’s decision on the grounds of challenge remains to be seen.

French Investigation Duplication Argument

* Mr Ravatomanga’s lawyers contend that the FCC’s investigation relies on allegations already examined and closed by the French authorities in July 2023, arguing that pursuing the same facts amounts to an abuse of the judicial process by forcing him to defend against charges previously dismissed by a competent international body. How do you respond to that?

Mr Ravatomanga’s lawyers may have a valid point in so far as the facts investigated by the French authorities are identical to those currently under investigation by the FCC. However, if the FCC possesses new evidence, it is its professional duty to probe the matter further.

Dual Role of the MP-Lawyer

* One of Mr Ravatomanga’s lawyers is a sitting Member of Parliament (MP) who belongs to the Government bench. Does this dual role as a government MP and legal counsel for a client facing a major money laundering investigation raise questions regarding potential ethical concerns and conflicts of interest within the public and legal spheres, which are subject to public and professional scrutiny?

No. A lawyer who is also a Member of Parliament is free to accept a retainer subject to certain conditions and so long as it does not negatively impact their position or function as an MP and does not breach the Code of Ethics for Barristers.

Mr Khushal Lobine is a backbencher of the parliamentary majority. He is neither a Minister nor a Parliamentary Private Secretary (Junior Minister). His retainer, therefore, does not inherently conflict with his status as a majority MP.

Jurisdiction and Illicit Funds Source

* The FCC is investigating suspected money laundering and illicit fund transfers involving Mr. Ravatomanga’s bank accounts, reportedly amounting to around Rs 7.3 billion or more. It also appears the Malagasy businessman may have invested in properties in Mauritius—presumably after the relevant authorities, Global Business Companies, and banks conducted due diligence on both the fund transfers and the property acquisitions. This, however, begs the question: does he have a case to answer within the Mauritian jurisdiction?

It would appear that the funds frozen at the behest of the Financial Crimes Commission (FCC) originated from Madagascar, which the individual subsequently invested in Mauritius. Upon the entry of any foreign investment into Mauritius, a stringent due diligence obligation is statutorily imposed upon the local institutional gatekeepers responsible for the necessary authorizations and financial clearances.

The FCC will need to establish whether that due diligence was properly conducted by the Mauritian financial institutions or licensing authorities. This should be the FCC’s initial point of investigation. If it is determined that due diligence was not properly executed, the next investigative step is to ascertain the source of funds in Madagascar, thereby tracing the origin of the money invested in Mauritius.

Suspect Rights During Interrogation

* It often happens that suspects under investigation by the Police or FCC experience health issues during interrogations. What are a suspect’s specific legal rights regarding interrogation, and how should the authorities or a legal team handle the issue of a client’s hospitalisation or alleged unfitness for interrogation?

When a suspect is being interrogated, he must be cautioned and informed of his right to remain silent. He cannot be compelled to speak.
Furthermore, if the suspect has a health problem, the authorities have a constitutional and statutory duty to ensure the suspect receives necessary and appropriate medical attention. This obligation stems from the constitutional right to life.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 7 November 2025