When serious allegations of a Rs 350 million influence-peddling network emerge from a defendant in an ongoing case, they immediately test the foundations of the country’s anti-corruption framework. This scenario raises crucial questions regarding the independence of investigative agencies (like the Police and FCC), the legal parameters of the crime of influence peddling, and the procedural mechanisms courts must employ when the integrity of an investigating officer or agency itself is called into question. Lex examines these issues in the following Qs & As.
* We have witnessed lately one individual, Mr Nasser Bheeky, arrested as part of an FCC investigation linked to Malagasy businessman Mamy Ravatomanga, and who made allegations in court about an Rs 350 million influence-peddling network involving political and business circles. Given the seriousness of such claims, can the Police independently investigate them despite the case being before the court?
Influence peddling (traffic d’influence) is a crime that involves paying someone, or being paid, to abuse their real or perceived influence over a public authority in order to obtain a favourable decision or advantage. It generally involves three parties: a person acting as an intermediary, a public authority that is influenced, and a beneficiary who hopes for a benefit.
In an ongoing case, these allegations are treated like any other claim and must be investigated and addressed through formal legal procedures and the submission of admissible evidence.
Given the seriousness of the claims mentioned in the question, the Police or any other relevant investigative authority which typically investigates traffic d’influence can independently investigate them.
* What are the essential legal elements that must be proven to secure a conviction for influence peddling under Mauritian law?
Section 25(3) of the FCC Act provides: “Any person who gives, agrees to give or offers a gratification to a public official to cause that public official to use his influence, real or fictitious, to obtain any work, employment, contract or other benefit from a public body, shall commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding 20 million rupees and to penal servitude for a term not exceeding 10 years.”
The elements of the offense are explicitly stated in the section. In addition, criminal intention must be proved.
* If a suspect were to allege that an FCC officer tried to silence him during questioning, and his lawyers have requested that another institution investigate the matter, citing a conflict of interest, how do courts generally handle such requests when the integrity of the investigating body is called into question?
The precise reason and circumstances under which he was allegedly stopped from speaking remain unclear. If the intervention occurred because he was rambling, irrelevant, or uttering indecent matters, it was justified. Similarly, if he was incriminating himself without being formally warned about his rights, the action to stop him was necessary and proper. Conversely, if he was prevented from speaking solely because of the nature of the allegations he was making, then the intervention was improper. Regardless of the circumstances, he retains the right to file a formal declaration with the police concerning any matters on which his testimony was curtailed.
* On what legal and procedural grounds can an independent entity be asked to take over an investigation from another investigative agency due to a potential conflict of interest?
In a case involving a conflict of interest, the police do not automatically “take over” the case from the other investigative agency. Instead, the primary obligation is on the latter agency to recuse the involved personnel. To ensure an unbiased investigation and avoid the appearance of impropriety, it may then formally refer the entire investigation to the police for handling. This process maintains institutional integrity and ensures public trust in the investigation’s fairness.
* If a suspect were to alert a senior Cabinet member about the alleged Rs 350 million network and the role of a high official of the investigative agency, and if these claims prove to be unfounded, would it be fair to say that taking them seriously might expose the senior Cabinet member to criticism for poor judgment or political opportunism?
The Cabinet minister act on mere unsubstantiated allegations. If the suspect simply made wild allegations to get off from a tight corner, he should not be taken seriously. At any rate whenever he is questioned he states he will talk later. Let us wait.
* What concrete steps would be required to ensure that any subsequent investigation meets public expectations of transparency and rigour?
A fraud investigation is a systematic process of examining and uncovering instances of deceit, dishonesty, or unethical behaviour that financially benefits the perpetrator. It involves gathering evidence, analyzing records, conducting interviews, and verifying information by honest and independent investigators to determine whether fraudulent activities have occurred.
The goal is to identify the perpetrator(s), assess the extent of the fraud, and take corrective or legal action to mitigate damage to the business. Fraud investigations are critical for protecting organizational integrity, assets, and reputation.
* What is the burden of proof on the suspect to substantiate his claims of influence peddling, and could his statements offer him any form of legal protection as a potential whistleblower?
The suspect needs to produce solid credible evidence that will pass the test of proof beyond doubt in a court of law. If he is making wild allegations out of spite, he may be liable to prosecution for false and malicious denunciation in writing or criminal defamation.
* If the court finds that the Agency’s inquiry was compromised by internal conflicts, what would be the legal implications for the original charges against the suspect?
Let’s take the example of the FCC and the legal framework under which it operates: By virtue of the concept of the separation of powers, the FCC investigates and has the power to prosecute financial crimes. However, once charges are formally filed and enter the judicial system, the court proceedings operate under their own rules and are overseen by an independent judiciary.
The court’s primary concern is the legal validity of the charges and the evidence presented, not the internal administrative environment of the FCC that brought them.
Internal conflicts at the FCC would not typically impact on the original charges against a culprit, as the prosecution of a case proceeds based on the evidence and legal process, largely independent of internal agency dynamics once the case reaches the courts
* Should allegations against, for example an FCC officer be proven, what institutional or disciplinary measures could be imposed on the FCC to restore public confidence and institutional integrity?
Should allegations against an FCC officer be proven, a range of disciplinary and institutional measures would be imposed to restore public confidence and institutional integrity. These measures focus on individual accountability, systemic reform, and transparency.
The primary response to proven allegations involves the formal disciplinary process, which could include suspension from duty during the investigation and subsequent proceedings; termination of employment, particularly in cases involving gross misconduct like corruption; criminal prosecution, monetary penalties or forfeiture of funds acquired improperly; civil lawsuits brought by victims or the institution itself to recover damages.
Ultimately, the goal is to demonstrate that the FCC operates within the legal framework, holds its personnel to high ethical standards, and takes decisive action when those standards are breached, thereby safeguarding public confidence in its integrity and effectiveness.
