Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

AUGUST 2020
SCHOOL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND
ENGINEERING
BSc (Hons) Mathematics
(BM/19A/FT)

Life
Skills

Academic Year 2019: Second year Semester 1

Title: How to eradicate corruption
Lecturer: Vadeevaloo Dineshsen

Seelochun Rithik Varma

1903_17192

Table of content:
 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

 Corruption
i) Introduction
ii) What does it affect?
iii) Consequences of corruption

 Case Law
i) BHADAIN S v ICAC
ii) HA YEUNG CHIN YING T S v THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST
CORRUPTION & ANOR
iii) ICAC v BEEGOO KUNAL
iv) ICAC v Boutanive

 Ways to eradicate/reduce corruption

 Conclusion

CORRUPTION
 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

Corruption is defined by the World Bank and Transparency International (TI) as “the misuse of
public office for private gain.” As such, it involves the improper and unlawful behavior of public-service
officials, both politicians and civil servants, whose positions create opportunities for the diversion of
money and assets from government to themselves and their accomplices.

Corruption distorts resource allocation and government performance. The causes of its
development are many and vary from one country to the next. Among the contribution factors are
policies, programs and activities that are poorly conceived and manage, failing institution, poverty,
income disparities, inadequate civil servants’ remuneration, and a lack of accountability and
transparency. Evidence of corruption becoming “accepted behavior” can be found in the comments of
elderly lady from Mbale, Uganda during the National Integrity Survey in 1998: In fact, this is a common,
daily and open practice, so that we think government has legalized the payment of bribes in the country.

The impact of corruption in the economy:

 Corruption increases the volume of public investments (at the expense of private investments),
as there are many options that allow for public expenditure manipulation and are carried out by
high-level officials so as to get bribes (which means that more general government expenditures
or a large budget offer more opportunities for corruption).

 Corruption redirects the composition of public expenditure from the expenditure necessary for
basic functioning and maintenance to expenditure on new equipment.

 Corruption tends to pull away the composition of public expenditure from the necessary fixed
assets for health and education, as there is less chance of getting commissions than from other,
perhaps unnecessary projects.

 Corruption reduces the effectiveness of public investments and the infrastructure of a country.

Who does it affect?

Corruption affects everyone, especially minority and vulnerable populations. As the biggest
obstacle to economic and social development it harms societies in these ways:

It undermines democracy and human rights by weakening governments.

It diverts funds from public services such as health care, education, and sanitation.

It discourages foreign investment, leading to fewer jobs.

 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

Those numbers aren’t the only reason to get mad. Corrupt officials divert funds from public services
like health care and education to projects that will line their pockets. Corruption also harms societies by
undermining human rights. It can cost people their freedom and sometimes their lives.

So how can you fight corruption? By making sure the laws in your country are enforced, says former
U.N. youth observer Jackson Dougan.

Many countries have anti-corruption laws, but, as Dougan explains, they may not have the resources
to monitor and enforce those laws. That’s where you can help.

Since 2012, Mauritius has seen its score plummeting in the Corruption Perception Index. In 2018,
with a score of 50, Mauritius is ranked 54 th in the world out of 180 countries. this Sunday 9 th December,
we are celebrating the International Anti-Corruption day worldwide. While Lovania Pertab sees positive
signs, Rajendra Patil Hunma believes otherwise. It is time to deliberate where does Mauritius stand in
the fight against corruption. Are we on the right track? Opinions are divided amongs our experts in this
field.

Mauritius is ranked 6th in Africa behind Botswana, Seychelles, Cape-Verde, Rwanda and Namibia.
Much is being done to combat corruption in the country. Is Mauritius winning the fight against
corruption or are we lagging behind?

Mauritius has subscribed to the following international instruments to curb corruption:

 United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)- signed 9 th December 2003 and ratified
on 15th December 2004;
 African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption – signed 6 th July 2004;
 SADC Protocol Against Corruption – signed 14 th August 2001 ratified 14th January 2002

Moreover, the Prevention of Corruption Act (PoCA) 2002, as subsequently amended, has been
enacted by the National Assembly to provide for the criminalization of corruption and for the
establishment of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). The Commission adopts a
three-pronged approach to combat corruption: investigation, prevention and education.

Case law

Although most laws are enacted by Parliament in the form of legislation, in a common law
system such as ours the courts can also develop the law. By deciding a disputed point of law a senior
 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

court (known as a court of record) can change or clarify the law, thereby setting a precedent which other
courts are bound to follow or apply in later cases.

By publishing and indexing law reports, ICLR ensures that people can easily find and learn about
the cases that have changed or clarified the law over the years, how they have affected earlier cases or
interpreted legislation, and whether they have been overtaken by later cases on the same topic.

The Mauritius we have several case law and here are some extracts:

i. BHADAIN S v ICAC

This is an application for judicial review of the decisions taken by the respondent,

the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), to dismiss the applicants

Messrs Bhadain, Ghoorah and Halkharee from their respective posts at the Commission.

At the material time, applicant Bhadain was the Director of the Corruption Investigation

Division, applicant Ghoora the Chief Investigator and applicant Halkharee an

investigator. The affidavits show that they were all well qualified for their jobs which they

had obtained after proper advertisement, a formal interview and an integrity check. They

were dismissed one after the other: Bhadain on 23 December 2003 following an

interdiction which occurred on 3 December 2003, Ghoora summarily on 6 January,

without any preceding interdiction and Halkharee on 9 January 2004 after he was

interdicted on 15 December 2003. All these dismissals were without enquiry, without

charge and without hearing.

ICAC claims that such obligations did not arise under the law inasmuch as all

three applicants were at the time under a probationary period which in the events which

took place showed that they were unsuitable for the jobs they occupied.

On 20 July 2004, we gave leave for a judicial review of the decisions dismissing

the applicants. We are, accordingly, at the merits stage. The facts concerning the three
 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

applicants are inextricably linked. The applications were heard together and we propose

to deliver one common judgment. The issues they raise may more conveniently be

subsumed under the following headings:

(1) the applicability and the nature of a probation clause in the

case of the applicants;

(2) procedural impropriety and illegality in the decision-making

process; and

(3) improper and extraneous motive involved in the decision

taking.

There have been seven affidavits produced by and on behalf of the applicants

and six by and on behalf of the respondent. The issues regarding the role of the correspondents, the
Honorable Prime Minister and that of the Corruption Advisory

Committee, will be dealt with at their proper place.

ii. HA YEUNG CHIN YING T S v THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION & ANOR

Upon a complaint being made to me by the petitioner that her husband, the corespondent, was
being illegally detained by the second respondent (the Commissioner

of Police) following an unlawful arrest by the first respondent (The Independent

Commission against Corruption), I ordered that a writ of habeas corpus be issued upon

the second respondent enjoining him to bring the co-respondent to this Court and I also

ordered each of the two respondents to depute a representative to enlighten the Court in

connection with the arrest and detention, respectively, of the co-respondent.

After conducting an examination, in accordance with section 188 of the Criminal

Procedure Act, in view of determining whether the cause of the detention is just or not, I

have found the following essential facts to be well established:

 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

(1) The co-respondent was arrested by S.P. Hurrychurn with the

assistance of other police officers who, like S.P. Hurrychurn

himself, are officers designated by the second respondent, under

section 24(5)(b) of The Prevention of Corruption Act 2002 (“the

Act”) to lend their services to the first respondent.

(2) S.P. Hurrychurn has, moreover, been appointed by the

Commission under section 29 of the Act to perform the functions

of the Director of the Corruption Investigation division.

(3) The arrest was effected upon the co-respondent being charged

with an offence of money laundering under section 3 of the

Money Laundering Act, an offence which was being investigated

by the first respondent by virtue of its function under section 20(1)

(o) of the Act upon a referral by the Financial Intelligence Unit.

Mrs. G. Manna, the Chief Legal Adviser of the first respondent, who appeared for

the latter, has conceded that the first respondent does not have, by itself, any other

powers of arrest than those provided in section 53 of the Act by virtue of which the

Commissioner of the first respondent may direct one of its officers in writing to arrest a

person where he is satisfied that the latter, who may assist him in his investigation, is

about to leave Mauritius, has interfered with a potential witness or intends to destroy

documentary evidence which is in his possession and which he has refused to give to

the Commission. Whilst Mrs. Manna further concedes that the arrest of the correspondent was not
effected in virtue of the powers under section 53 of the Act, she has

however, submitted that the arrest was lawfully effected by virtue of the powers of arrest
 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

of S.P. Hurrychurn and the other police officers who assisted him inasmuch as they had

retained their powers of arrest as police officers whilst working for the first respondent

and the latter could avail itself of those powers. She referred, in support of her

argument, to the judgment of this Court in Deerpalsing v The Director of the Economic

Crime 0ffice.

iii. ICAC v BEEGOO KUNAL

Accused stands charged with the offence of ‘Conflict of interests’ in breach of Section 13

(2) & (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He pleaded not guilty to the charge was

assisted by counsel at his trial.

The charge against the accused is that on or about 1 December 2006 at MSPCA, Rose

Hill he did willfully, unlawfully and criminally, whist being a public official having a

personal interest in a decision which a public body was to take, did take part (emphasis

is mine) in proceedings of that public body concerning a decision to renew the working

contract of his father, Mr Premchand Beegoo.

In support of its case the Prosecution produced the birth certificate of the

accused – Doc A.

Witness 1 Vishal Deepchand, Investigator at ICAC, deposed and produced the

statement recorded from the accused on 24/8/07 at ICAC office – Doc B.

Upon cross-examination he admitted that at the meeting of 1/12/06 representatives of

different ministries were present and he did not check with them the participation of the

accused in the proceedings being given that the ICAC had sufficient evidence in hand.

However, he agreed that there was need for an element of fairness towards the accused

during the course of the enquiry. Hence he did not verify the participation of the accused
 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

in the deliberations of the said meeting.

iv. ICAC v Boutanive

The Accused stands charged under three counts with ‘Corruption of agent’ in breach of

section 16(1) and 83 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA) and he pleaded Not Guilty

to all three counts.

He was assisted by Counsel. The case for the Prosecution was also conducted by Counsel.

Mr. Goodoory read and produced two statements from the Accused (Documents A and A1

refer) as well as a racing calendar for the 2003 season (Document B refers). He also

confirmed during cross-examination that the present case started after the Financial

Intelligence Unit (FIU) received a suspicious transaction report (STR) from Hong Kong Bank

under the Financial Intelligence And Money Laundering Act (FIAMA).

Mr. Benoit Halbwachs, Secretary at the Mauritius Turf Club (‘MTC’) since 1994, confirmed

that the Accused was a freelance jockey in 2003. He also confirmed that the different races

subject matter of counts 1, 2 and 3 took place and were all won by horses mounted by the

Accused. He further produced an extract of the MTC rules 53 B (Document C refers).

During cross-examination, it was elicited from the said witness that as a freelance jockey, the

Accused was allowed to ride for whomsoever he wished and that there was no contract of

employment in respect of the Accused and any stable filed with the MTC in 2003. He also

confirmed that Mr. Sailesh Ramdin (witness no.4) was the stable trainer of Mahesh Ramdin

stable in 2003 whilst Mr. Mahesh Ramdin was the stable manager of said stable. He admitted

that Mr. Mahesh Ramdin was responsible towards the MTC as stable manager.

Mr. Saileshsing Ramdin, deponed to the effect that he is the trainer at the Mahesh Ramdin

stable which is managed by Mr. Mahesh Ramdin. He was then confronted with his statement
 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

dated 31-10-08 wherein he stated the stable was managed by him, to which he agreed having

said so but added that he only meant by ‘managed’ the training of the horses and the reporting

of jockeys to him. He agreed that from July 2003 to 15-11-2003, the Accused was riding

horses for the Ramdin stable as well as helping in the training of horses. But he clarified that

the Accused did not necessarily ride all the horses of the stable. He also stated that there was

a gentleman’s agreement between the Accused and the stable and no contract of employment

as such between the two parties. He added that the Accused was paid for the expenses

incurred as a result of the training which took place at Floreal. He confirmed that the horses

‘Best of British’ and ‘Sporting Gamble’ were horses running under the Ramdin stable in 2003

and that ‘Best of British’ won the race on 31-08-03 whereas ‘Sporting Gamble’ won the race

on 18-10-03. He also confirmed that the Accused mounted both of these horses. He

explained that the Accused was paid by the MTC a riding fee.

The Prosecution then closed its case and so did the Defense without adducing any evidence.

Both Counsel made their respective submissions.

Whilst perusing the Accused’s statements (Documents A and A1 refer), it is clear that he

admitted having received gift from owners of horses and family members. However, it is

also clear that the present charges under the present information with all its elements were not

put to the Accused so that there is no admission as such to the present charges against him in

his statements. Further, there is no admission from him in his statement as to whether he was

allowed to accept gift from family members (vide folio 8518 of Documents A1). He in fact

did not reply to the said question so that for all intents and purposes there is no admission to

any of the charges against him today in his statements to Police.

 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

In the light of the many cases of alleged fraud and corruption, both in the public and private sectors
and presently reported by the press, Transparency Mauritius notes a marked deterioration of the
confidence climate within the population. The numerous investigations that are being conducted by the
Economic Crime Office demonstrate the urgent necessity to ensure more transparency at the level of
administrative procedures and important transaction. These, because of the grey areas that are
associated with them, help to create and maintain suspicious, justification or not, in relation to decisions
and measures taken by people in position of responsibilities.

Ways to reduce/eradicate corruption

Corruption refers to a form of criminal activity or dishonesty. It refers to an evil act by an

individual or a group. Most noteworthy, this act compromises the rights and privileges of others.
Furthermore, Corruption primarily includes activities like bribery or embezzlement. However, Corruption
can take place in many ways. Most probably, people in positions of authority are susceptible to
Corruption. Corruption certainly reflects greedy and selfish behavior.

One important way of preventing Corruption is to give a better salary in a government job. Many
government employees receive pretty low salaries. Therefore, they resort to bribery to meet their
expenses. So, government employees should receive higher salaries. Consequently, high salaries would
reduce their motivation and resolve to engage in bribery.

Increasing the number of workers can be another suitable way of curbing Corruption. In many
government offices, the workload is very high. This provides an opportunity to slow down the work by
government employees. Consequently, these employees then indulge in bribery in return for faster
delivery of work. Hence, this opportunity to bribe can be removed by bringing in more employees in
government offices.

Tough laws are very important for stopping Corruption. Above all, strict punishments need to be
meted out to guilty individuals. Furthermore, there should be an efficient and quick implementation of
strict laws.

Applying cameras in workplaces is an excellent way to prevent corruption. Above all, many
individuals would refrain from indulging in Corruption due to fear of being caught. Furthermore, these
individuals would have otherwise engaged in Corruption.
 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

The government must make sure to keep inflation low. Due to the rise in prices, many people
feel their incomes to be too low. Consequently, this increases Corruption among the masses.
Businessmen raise prices to sell their stock of goods at higher prices. Furthermore, the politician
supports them due to the benefits they receive.

There is no silver bullet for fighting corruption. Many countries have made significant progress in
curbing corruption, however practitioners are always on the lookout for solutions and evidence of
impact. Here are five ways that citizens and governments can make progress in fighting against
corruption:

1. Corruption is not only about bribes: People especially the poor get hurt when resources are
wasted. That’s why it is so important to understand the different kinds of corruption to develop
smart responses.

2. Power of the people: Create pathways that give citizens relevant tools to engage and participate
in their governments – identify priorities, problems and find solutions.

3. Cut the red tape: Bring together formal and informal processes (this means working with the
government as well as non-governmental groups) to change behavior and monitor progress.

4. It’s not 1999: Use the power of technology to build dynamic and continuous exchanges between
key stakeholders: government, citizens, business, civil society groups, media, academia etc.

5. Deliver the goods: Invest in institutions and policy – sustainable improvement in how a
government delivers services is only possible if the people in these institutions endorse sensible
rules and practices that allow for change while making the best use of tested traditions and
legacies – imported models often do not work.
 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

6. Get incentives right: Align anti-corruption measures with market, behavioral, and social forces.
Adopting integrity standards is a smart business decision, especially for companies interested in
doing business with the World Bank Group and other development partners.

7. Sanctions matter: Punishing corruption is a vital component of any effective anti-corruption

effort.

8. Act globally and locally: Keep citizens engaged on corruption at local, national, international and
global levels – in line with the scale and scope of corruption. Make use of the architecture that
has been developed and the platforms that exist for engagement.

9. Build capacity for those who need it most: Countries that suffer from chronic fragility, conflict
and violence– are often the ones that have the fewest internal resources to combat corruption.
Identify ways to leverage international resources to support and sustain good governance.

10. Learn by doing: Any good strategy must be continually monitored and evaluated to make sure it
can be easily adapted as situations on the ground change.

Moreover, in view of securing the commitment and active participation of the youth in the fight
against corruption, the ICAC in collaboration with the Youth Against Corruption (YAC) Platform is
organizing an Anti-Corruption Short Film Competition on the theme ‘Fighting corruption is everybody’s
social responsibility’.

In this context, YUVA invites YUVANs to participate in the competition. You will find a copy of the
participation guide and a participation form at the end of this article.

The objectives of the competition are to:

 Enable participants to reflect on corruption and related issues and convey anti-corruption
messages through short films; and
 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

 Provide participants with an innovative and trendy means to demonstrate their commitment in
the fight against corruption.

In the present legal system, throughout the world, there is no specific law which eradicates the
corruption in the society. Our legal systems have various constitutional and legal provisions still
corruption is not control and growing up day by day. Roots of corruption are very deep and common
person are suffering, on the other hand criminals who have committed corruption or involve in big scam
are moving free in our society, so if there will be an elaborating, specific law, corruption may be
controlled or eradicated.

As like Rose is king of all flowers, Corruption is also “King” of all ‘offences’. Neither the Law nor
the law enforcement and investigating machinery or the public service administration able to control the
“corruption” in society. The biggest hurdle in the Prevention of Corruption is the lack of public
awareness. Corruption is heinous crime as compare to that of traditional crimes. Corruption directly
attack on national economy affecting development of country which is necessary to be curbed and
removed by adopting proper legal system. 363

White Collar Crime is offspring of “Economic offences”. Due to lack of evidence and legal
technicality and after taking undue advantage or benefit of lacuna or of defects under the
law/enactments relating to corruption, they easily come out of jail and enjoy ill-gotten money. Loss
cause due to big scam or scandal directly causes great harm to national wealth and progress. To control
this harm their option should be particular law. Existing laws or enactments related to eradication of
corruption in society are failing to control its menace as well as insufficient to fight with it and there is
need of new comprehensive law to control and punish these corrupt Criminals.

Today, people have already lost their faith or confidence on criminal justice system because we
always seen that, politicians and influential public officers and even ideal person to whom we take
aspiration are involved in scam but they never go to jail despite huge evidence. In short, common
persons are suffering whereas, white collar criminals are moving free in our society so if there will be an
elaborative specific law on corruption in India then only its menace can be controlled.

At last, we can say that, nothing can be done until there is will power in the people to fight
corruption. Laws can only act when people come forward and complaint against corrupt practices, all
the laws will have effect unless people will come forward and fight against evil of corruption. Lack of
awareness is one of the key obstacles in the anti-corruption movements, very less number of people are
 Seelochun Rithik Varma BM/19A/FT

aware of their right course of action to be taken against the corrupt officials and what will be the
remedies for the aggrieved party at concluding we can say that, awareness among people will bring out
the change in the society and ultimately, India will be a corruption free country in the world.