Complaint to the ICAC on 11th July 2010

The Chief Investigator

Independent Commission Against Corruption

Marine Road

Port Louis

This Sunday, 11 July 2010

Dear Sir,

First of all I wish to thank you and your colleagues for your hospitality before, during and after my interview last Friday (hats off). With reference to my complaint letter dated 18^th June 2010 (Annex 9), please find below a detailed, complete and enhanced official written copy of my complaint summary as undertaken orally against the management of the Mauritius Sugar Authority (MSA) in the routine deposition during my interview at ICAC headquarters in the presence of my wife as witness on Friday, 9^th July 2010. Kindly note that this letter is a review of the letter handed over to ICAC on 09^th July 2010 and which was dated 8^th July 2010 whereby all relevant information has been attached for your ease of references adequately. Hereunder you will probably find all the required information that will inevitably be of utmost importance to help you during your investigation. In relation to section (2)(b)(iv) and section (3)(a) of the Prevention Against Corruption Act 2002, I have utmost confidence that your investigation will lead you towards establishing the guilt of MSA management for corruption through the misuse of information in the light of my allegations and the proofs/references put forward with utmost good faith, and this because the questions I am putting forward, in relation to this case, are compelling and indicative of the alleged fraud. At this stage, due to the fact that the Deputy Executive Director of the MSA lied several times before the enforcement committee of the Ministry of Labour, I am requesting you to keep me informed of all developments during investigation as well as the response of MSA management because it is very clear that they will have only two choices: they may either back-pedaled and comply to my rights or they may well resort to their usual lying and misleading strategy as unveiled before the enforcement committee.

(2) The sponsorship issue:

My various official requests to the MSA for the allocation of my MBA sponsor was to no avail, and this in spite of the fact that I have notified the MSA management several times that a denial of 100% MBA sponsorship would amount to discrimination. Since December 2004 my requests were subject to the ignorance and fraudulent manipulation of my letters dated 30^th December 2004 (Annex 1), 13^th September 2005 (Annex 14), 24^th May 2006 (Annex 2), 16^th July 2006 (Annex 15), and 25 February 2008 (Annex 3). The humanitarian ground issue (Annex 10) to justify the allocation of only 50% sponsor is just a malevolent fraud and illegal eyewash aimed to divert attention from the manipulation of information regarding my application for 100% MBA sponsorship. The laws are here to unveil this injustice and protect me from the constant maintenance of this discrimination with regards to my rights of protection from discrimination relating to the provision of facilities (sponsorship) connected to any employment as enshrined in section (16) (d) of the Training and Employment of Disabled Persons Board Act 1996 (Annex 4) and section (11)(c) of the Equal Opportunities Act 2008 (Annex 5). Why only me 50% sponsorship? The law does not allow such discrimination because of my disability. So it will be interesting to know what explanation they have for this. Why my letters have not been taken back to the Board for approval following my protest regarding the breach of my rights? The MSA management was accountable and duty-bound to take the matter back to the board for approval following my various requests and protests. So doesn’t their ignorance and failure to do the needful amount to manipulation of information? Should not their omission be considered as corruption? Why there have not been any follow-up for the payment of the supposed 50% humanitarian ground sponsorship since April 2006? Why have my letters not been answered? As shown in paragraph 4 of the circular letter dated 18 July 2008 (Annex 11) and my protest in paragraph 3 of my letter to the MSA dated 18^th July 2008 (Annex 12), the MSA was misleading and eye-washing in its strategy based on lies in order to divert all attention away from the malevolent and discriminating practices regarding the allocation of sponsorship for training and skill upgrading. How will the MSA management explain the malevolent content of this letter when my MBA sponsorship was illegally manipulated and delayed? With reference to my letter addressed to the new Executive Director of the MSA dated 6^th July 2010 (Annex 13), I highlighted the fact that it was decided before the enforcement committee that the matter must be taken back to the board for approval. At this stage, I will be grateful if the needful could be done to prevent any further corrupt manipulation that may again lead to the breach of my rights. The points identified behind the sponsorship issues are sufficient to constitute the requirement of a prima facie case for corruption.

(3) The vacation leaves payment and time-off facilities issue:

Please note that the enforcement committee of the Ministry Of Labour has decided, in relation to my letters dated 19 January 2007(Annex 16), 2^nd July 2007 (Annex 17), 18^th July 2007 (Annex 18) as well as the letters from the MSA dated 9^th April 2007 (Annex 19),16^th July 2007 (Annex 20) and the proofs available to justify that I have been subject to discrimination (i.e. the fact that other clerks were allocated time-off facilities for study purposes), that my rights for protection from discrimination regarding the provision of facilities relating to or connected with employment as enshrined in section (11) (c) of the Equal Opportunities Act 2008 (Annex 5) as well as in Section (16)(d) of the Training and Employment of Disabled Persons Board Act 1996 (Annex 4) have both been infringed. The committee therefore summoned the MSA to do the needful for:

(a) The time off facilities to be allocated.

(b) A flexible arrangement to be made in order to allow me to fill my leave forms with the required accessibility to the attendance register to ensure fairness on an equal basis with other employees.

(c) The vacation leave payment which is due since 2006 to be paid unconditionally.

Why the MSA management has not considered my rights relating to the allocation of my time-off facilities, the filling of my leaves form fairly and the payment of my vacation leaves since 2006 and despite the fact that I have sent various letters to protest against these injustices. There is not a single doubt that there was manipulation/misuse of information, thereby amounting to the criteria to constitute corruption.

(4) The promotion issue:

I have been victim of tremendous injustice and discrimination since 2005. The vacant posts I applied for were illegally freezed after the setting up of illegal criteria designed to make me ineligible as shown in the letter of the MSA relating to internal advertisement dated 11 May 2006 (Annex 21) and my letters to the MSA dated 23^rd May 2006 (Annex 22) as well as 25 February 2008 (Annex 3). The delay for the filling of these posts is just a malevolent eye-washed since other forms of career advancement through restyling occurred.

As highlighted by the Mauritius Sugar Authority Employees Union (MSAEU) in its letter addressed to MSA management on 24/06/2010 (Annex 6), the former Executive Director of the MSA had recourse to independent assessor whereby the main objective was to safeguard the interest of some blue-eyed employees who have showed allegiance to him, and this at the expense of meritocracy, qualifications, justice, logic and fairness; thereby jeopardizing the central engine of the organizational operations structure (Organigram) of the MSA. The intensive discrimination I was subject could be explained by the fact that some officers enjoyed facilities equivalent to eye-washed promotion. A reliable example is this officer who in spite of not having the required qualifications has got the privilege of positive discrimination measures as well as eye-washed promotion through the restyling of his former post. After a first salary increase/monthly allocation of MUR 3000 he was subject to an unbelievable monthly allocation of 50% of his salary representing an equivalent allocation of more than 25 increments together with other benefits. On the other hand, I was subject to tremendous exclusion and discrimination within an apartheid-like jungle. Much more than this, in a letter addressed to the Barrister at Law of the Union Me D.Ramano on 31 July 2007 (Annex 23), I was surprisingly not picked up by management to fill the post of Scientific officer IT Social project but the blue-eyed officer was targeted for a second promotion towards a post that have never existed (Senior Field Officer). Much more he don’t even have the qualifications for a clerical officer.

If I was not victim of discrimination, in my capacity as the most qualified, able, competent, brilliant and promising clerk within the MSA, I would have been restyled documentation clerk together with empowerment through the allocation of strategic and innovative responsibilities that would have allowed me to put my hard earned competencies and qualifications at the service of the documentation department so as to modernize the operations of information and documentation management within the MSA in order to enhance and maximize organizational effectiveness. Instead I was subject to a systematic and discriminative exclusion while the organizational structure relating to the Information System and Knowledge Management have been left to a stand still with a clear lack of competencies, creativeness and innovation (All these are reflected in the documentation department and the registry who are both left and forced to operate within the ancient bureaucratic model).

So why I have not been given additional responsibilities and restyled? Restyling is without doubt a form of career advancement or a form of promotion and it is illegal to deny me this in relation to section 16(1)(b) of the Training and Employment of Disabled Persons Board Act 1996 (Annex 4) and section 11(d) of the Equal Opportunities Act 2008 (Annex 5) . What criteria did MSA management used for the selection of employees eligible for the allocation of responsibilities as a mean of empowerment for restyling? “PETIT COPAIN”? Random selection? Qualifications? What are the qualifications of officers who have been restyled? Were not there other employees with better profile in term of qualifications, competencies and dedication to handle further responsibilities? It should not be forgotten that I was malevolently excluded for experience through empowerment as shown by the letter of the MSA dated 11 December 2007 (Annex 24). This again is illegal. Why have the vacant posts not been filled since 2006? On what ground were these vacant posts freezed? Were the board members agreeable to freeze these vacant posts? If yes, why? Was there any manipulation of information at the heart of this promotion issue? These questions will inevitably lead towards establishing the extent to which the misuse of information have spread throughout the operations of the MSA; thereby, leading to the illegal discrimination and maladministration in my case.

I have in the light of my qualifications, merits and competencies applied for the now vacant post of Information Scientist as highlighted in my letter dated 6^thJuly 2010 (Annex 13) and the MSA Board should be accountable for a reply. If I am not selected, they should specify the reason.

Please note that the content of all my correspondences to the ICAC are made public through online means in less than 24 hours. I am doing this because this is the only way to spread the truth and I want the matter to reach the parliament before I step to the supreme court. I am hereby requesting you Sir to do the needful in order to allow the ICAC to undergo an in-depth investigation to confirm my allegation and thereby undertakes appropriate action so as to ensure that the will of the state to fight against corruption for the prosperity of our motherland, is not without effect.

I thank you in anticipation.

Best Regards

Mervyn Anthony CM, MBA

Email: mervynanthony@hotmail.com

Blog: ma-disabilityrightalliance.blogspot.com

Please note that I am given to understand that the ICAC is closely monitoring my case which is currently before the Enforcement Committee of Ministry of Labour. If the injustice persist within the next three weeks then detailed soft copies of the references annexed to this letter will be posted on my blog and on facebook together with more intensive measures to unveil the root of the injustices behind my case. Some of these measures are already underway.