Select Page


Dear Commissioners

You are referred to your the letters dated 22.02.2012, signed by the Acting Secretary to the Commission and bearing the following references: ICAC/FIR/1665/11 and ICAC/FIR/07/12.

They both contain the following formulaic statement:

With reference to your email dated (…) and the statement you made at the ICAC on (…), I am directed to inform you that the evidence has not disclosed elements of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PoCA) or the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act (FIAMLA).

Yet neither contains any explanation or suggestion of alternative course of redress for the complaints. Moreover, the titles you have assigned to both complaints do not refer to the main accused parties. Taking each in turn:

Complaint against the Jugnauth Family et al.

As explained in the my initial complaint and made clear in the subsequent statement, the main accused party is the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). The pertinent evidence is that a request for registration of citizenship was initially denied for failure to satisfy a residency condition but the subsequent request was accepted despite the condition still not being satisfied. The first request took some five months to resolve while the second took just one month and was finalised on Christmas Eve. While the second request was assigned the same reference number as the first, no explanation or apology was given as to why the first request was denied even though this was a direct violation of the Constitution. Does this not provide grounds for suspicion?

ICAC were requested to investigate whether other applications during the same period received similar treatment in order to establish a pattern of abuse by the PMO. Has this been completed? Two distinct channels of gratification were identified this case, both of which involved actual or alleged members of the Jugnauth family. Were these investigated?

In addition, my statement contained allegations of interference in the submission of evidence by Prakash Ghoora. Has this been investigated and the appropriate action taken?

Complaint against HR Rawat Company and Police Officers of Pointe aux Canonniers Police Station (PACPS)

My statement clarified a misunderstanding of the initial complaint that PACPS were not in fact the main accused party unless they are implicated in the disappearance of the PF58 form obtained from them and subsequently submitted to SRN hospital when treated for my injuries. Has this been investigated?

As explained clearly in both initial complaint and statement, the main accused parties, in addition to HR Rawat Company in general and Ali Rawat in particular, were the police on duty at SVICC when I suffered repeated harassment and assault and the police officers of Grand Baie Police Station.

The former police officerts are accused of neglect of duty thus endangering my personal safety and screening the offender from punishment under threat from Ali Rawat or promise of gratification. Has this been investigated? The latter police officers are accused of conspiring with HM Rawat Company and possibly Mauritius Telecom to screen the offender from punishment when asked to assist in identifying him some weeks later; again, threat or promise of gratification are strongly suspected. Has this been investigated?

Course of action

In my opinion, both complaints provide clear grounds for suspicion of violations of the PoCA in addition to other criminal offences. In both cases, the main accused party is the PMO or departments under its responsibility. In these circumstances, your above mentioned letters may be construed as evidence of your interference in the investigations. The PMO would be the first suspected entity of conspiring with you, either by threat or promise of gratification.

You are requested to either:

  • Complete the above investigations and act on the findings in accordance with the law, or
  • Provide an adequate explanation of why you refuse to do so.

Failure to satisfy either of the above will result in legal action being taken against you, by way of, but not limited to:

  • Judicial review, and/or
  • Private prosecution for violation of Section 6 of the PoCA.

In view of the time limitations of the former, you are expected to comply without delay. You should be aware that this letter is being sent to the Ombudsman as the basis of a complaint against you and copied to the DPP with a request that he oversee this matter. You are requested to forward a copy of this letter to the ICAC Operations Review Committee as described in Section 41 of the PoCA since no address for them can be found on your website. It is assumed that they exist, otherwise this seriously undermines the credibility of the Commission. Or has their role been outsourced to la Triple Esperance?

On the subject of websites and credibility, your attention is drawn to the banner of the ICAC website which reads: “Working together in a patriotic spirit towards a corrupt free Mauritius”. Surely you mean “…towards a corruption-free Mauritius” or is it a Freudian slip revealing your true raison d’etre?

I attach a further statement regarding my complaint against Prakash Ghoora et al.

Your sincere comrade-in-arms in the fight AGAINST THE CORRUPT,

Dr Richard L Munisamy

cc: Ombudsman, DPP

Attachment: Complaint against Prakash Ghoora et al

This is the second statement I am making in relation to OB 14/12 (Fanfaron 03.01.2012), with respect to obstruction of an investigation by Prakash Ghoora.

Around 05.01.2012, I received a phone call from one Vishal Deepchand to arrange an interview in relation my complaint to ICAC (ICAC/FIR/1665/11). He agreed to come to my home – 6 Jubilee Apartments, Casse Ghoon Road, Pointe aux Canonniers – at 10:30 on 10.01.2012. After he failed to show up on time, I called the ICAC offices (2066600) and the call was transferred to him. He explained that he had received a written message stating that I had changed location of our meeting from my home to the ICAC offices. I vehemently deny leaving such a message.

I then drove directly to the ICAC offices and arrived around 11:30. I was shown the case file and it contained two copies of the supporting evidence and the CD I had left with ICAC on 23.12.2012 at the request of Prakash Goorah. I was informed by Vishal Deepchand that one copy had been downloaded from the link I had sent by email on 19.12.2011 detailing my complaint and one had been the other had been received as an attachment to an email sent on 21.12.2012. The presence of these directly contradicts what was said by Prakash Goorah, as detailed in my first statement in relation to OB 14/12, that is, he had not received the supporting evidence by either of these routes.

However, a further email, sent to ICAC on 31.12.2012 and which was to form the basis of my statement to ICAC, was not in the file. I was not able to recall in detail all of the contents of the email, to the detriment of my statement and potentially the ICAC investigation.

It is my conviction that Prakash Goorah and perhaps others at ICAC are persistently acting in such a manner as to severely hinder the investigation of my complaint. I strongly suspect that there is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, involving Prakash Goorah and other persons currently unknown but likely to include one or more members of the Prime Minister’s Office. This hindrance is also causing me significant inconvenience and constitutes harassment and if gratification is involved constitutes a violation of the PoCA, Section 6.

I further suspect that Prakash Ghoora, other members of ICAC and the judiciary are freemasons who have sworn to assist each other in times of need. This leads to a conflict of interest which can result in interference with investigations and/or prosecutions. As freemasonry is a mutual benefit society, it can be inferred that any request for assistance implicitly includes the offer that it will be repaid by way of gratification, either directly by other members of the society. This compromises the integrity and independence of both ICAC and the judiciary and would explain why so many high level cases have failed to achieve a single prosecution.

The African Court of Justice and Human Rights and the UK Judiciary require that judges disclose membership of influential societies (such as freemasonry) on appointment. Why is that not the case in Mauritius?

Dr Richard L Munisamy