A rejoinder from Jean-Mée Desveaux

Le Week-end 5/11/ 2006

Dear sir,

Following the report of the "Fact Finding Committee" published in your paper last Sunday, I would like to bring the following clarifications for the edification of your readers.

As correctly mentioned in the report, I attended a brain storming session at the inception of the Cyber Village project. As is obvious by its appellation, that session aimed at thrashing out ideas to set the ball rolling with a number of important potential stake holders: grade A contractors, Ministry of Housing and Land representatives, Michael Glover, an active and respected personality of the Sporting field in Mauritius, and representatives from the Mauritius Housing Company.

These stake holders having been brought together, that meeting was my first and last involvement EVER in either Cyber Tower, Cyber Village or any of the accompanying activities that unfolded in the years that followed. While suspending my judgment on the opprobrium that the FF Committee is throwing on such Boards, companies, etc. and the persons who served on them, I have at NO time been a member of ANY of the Boards or companies that were linked directly or indirectly with the Ebene Cyber projects or with this field of activity anywhere in Mauritius. I have never set foot at the Cyber Tower or the Cyber Village before, during or after construction EVER. I have never been involved in any administrative or financial decision associated with the project apart from making sure that the CEB and WMA (where I sat as Director) got a piece of the prime land for their Headquarters at an affordable price. I have not conducted any meeting with anyone to discuss the project or its ramification since that brain storming session where one of my sins was to emit the truism that the project was to be implemented by the private sector. This is so "troubling to the commission" that it can only be inferred that the Commission, in its great wisdom, would have preferred the project to be entrusted to the DWC or the Ministry of Public Infrastructure.

I had more than enough on my plate in 2001 after the debacle that the Labour party had left in its wake to indulge in the JOI or the Cyber tower projects, which were, to boost, of no interest to me. The very proof of my total absence from that field is borne out by the fact that the Fact Finding Committee could not find an iota of excuse to call me to its scrutinizing sessions. Either it is remiss in ignoring what the FFC Report mischievously paints as the architect of the "failure" of the Cyber project(s) or, as is patently obvious, it has no leg to stand on. Similarly, the methodology of the FFC is brought to light when we realize that the MD of the Cyber Tower for 4 years neither gets interviewed nor criticized for the dismal failure he is supposed to have presided over, while my involvement in a brain storming session of 60 minutes in October 2001 causes me to be pilloried for a series of projects I had absolutely no involvement in.

Your readers are now better able to decide for themselves whether the "facts" found by this Fact Finding Committee are worth the paper they are written on. The atmosphere of conspiracy, the ominous halo that accompanies every mention of my name, everything points to the fact that a fawning commission had to deliver the political package that a desperate Government paid it for. That it has distorted facts to the detriment of the truth it was supposed to bring to light is a matter that the members of the committee will have to live with. As to the innuendos associating me with a "flawed" bidding process in which I had no role whatsoever, it is a despicable abuse by cowards hiding behind the immunity from legal proceedings of such commissions. It is to be treated with the contempt that they have brought over themselves in this ultimate chance they had to make it to posterity.


Yours truly,

Jean-Mée Desveaux

“Baseless report”

l'express du 04/11/2006

By Jean-Mée DESVEAUX

Thank you for being the first commentator to note the dastardly Fact-Finding Committee’s treatment of my person in your editorial ( See “La polémique est lancée by Raj Meetarbhan in yesterday’s edition). I would be grateful if you could bring the following clarifications for the edification of your readers so that they may appreciate the utterly contemptible nature of the FFC’s exercise.

As correctly mentioned in the report, I attended a brainstorming session at the inception of the Cyber Village project. As is obvious by its appellation, that session aimed at thrashing out ideas to set the ball rolling with a number of important potential stakeholders: grade A contractors, Ministry of Housing and Land representatives, representatives from the Mauritius Housing Company and Michael Glover, an active and respected personality in the Sporting arena in Mauritius.

These stakeholders having been brought together, that meeting was my first and last involvement EVER in either Cyber Tower, Cyber Village or any of the accompanying (managerial, financial, tendering etc.) activities that unfolded in the years that followed.

While suspending my judgment on the opprobrium that the FF Committee is throwing on such Boards, companies etc. and the persons who served on them, I have at NO time been a member of ANY of the Boards or companies that were linked directly or indirectly with the Ebene Cyber projects or with this field of activity anywhere in Mauritius. I have never set foot at the Cyber Tower or the Cyber Village before, during or after construction -EVER. I have never been involved in ANY administrative or financial decision associated with the project(s) apart from making sure that the CEB and WMA (where I sat as Director) got a piece of the prime land for their headquarters at an affordable price. I have not conducted any meeting with anyone to discuss the project or its ramification since that brainstorming session where one of my sins was to emit the truism that the project was to be implemented by the private sector. This is so “troubling to the commission” that it can only be inferred that the Commission, in its great wisdom, would have preferred the project to be entrusted to the DWC or the Ministry of Public Infrastructure!

I had more than enough on my plate in 2001 after the debacle that the Labour party had left in its wake, to indulge in the JOI or the Cyber tower projects, which were, in addition, of no interest to me. The very proof of my total absence from any involvement in the Cyber activities is borne out by the fact that the FFC could not find an iota of excuse to convoke me to its scrutinizing sessions. I was therefore to be blamed, as is the habit in the worse of banana Republics (which Mauritius is fast becoming under Navin Ramgoolam), without even being granted the opportunity to answer the FFC’s questions. Either the FFC was remiss in not convoking the man its Report mischievously paints as the architect of the “failure” of the Cyber project(s) or, as is patently obvious, it has no leg to stand on in its underhand attempt to pin any responsibility on me whatsoever. Similarly, the flawed methodology of the FFC is brought to light when we realize that the MD of the Cyber Tower for 4 years was neither interviewed nor criticized for the dismal failure he is supposed to have presided over, while my involvement in a brainstorming session of 60 minutes in October 2001, causes me to be pilloried for a series of projects I had absolutely no involvement in.

Your readers are now better able to decide for themselves whether the “facts” found by this Fact-Finding Committee are worth the paper they are written on. The atmosphere of conspiracy, the ominous halo that accompanies every mention of my name, everything points to a fawning commission delivering the pathetic political package that a desperate Government paid it for with taxpayers’ money. That these men have distorted readily accessible facts to the detriment of the truth which they were supposed to bring to light, is a matter that the members of the committee will have to live with. As to the innuendos associating me with a “flawed” bidding process in which I had NO involvement whatsoever, it is a despicable abuse of basic decency. This vile and totally baseless accusation is to be treated with the contempt that the members of this FFC have brought over themselves in their last chance to make it to posterity.

La polémique est lancée

l'express du 03/11/2006

Par Raj MEETARBHAN

On tourne en rond dans la polémique autour de la société BPML. La communication gouvernementale s’appuie sur quelques insinuations faites dans le rapport Balgobin pour affirmer qu’il est “accablant” à l’égard des anciens dirigeants. Ces derniers soutiennent que tout l’exercice n’est qu’une opération politicienne qui vise à faire diversion. Ils ne discutent pas du fond du sujet. Ils se disputent.

La majorité au pouvoir s’empresse de tirer un capital politique du rapport Balgobin alors que l’urgence est de mettre en application ses recommandations. Plusieurs mesures concrètes y sont suggérées pour assainir la situation financière de BPML. Elles vont de la résiliation du bail des locataires du Cyber Village qui n’ont pas encore démarré leur construction à une injection de capital frais dans la société afin de réduire son endettement. Le gouvernement devrait utiliser ses ressources à bon escient et commencer à appliquer ces mesures plutôt que d’aligner quatre ministres trois fois par semaine pour donner des conférences de presse sur la question.

Dans une exploitation politicienne du rapport, les ministres donnent l’impression que le rapport fait état de fraude. En vérité, dans ses conclusions, le comité Balgobin évoque un “mismanagement of the affairs of BPML and its subsidiaries” et une “clear political interference” ou encore une “gross administrative negligence” avant d’affirmer que “BPML has been governed by an incompetent Board of Directors”. Il n’y a pas d’allégations de fraude.

Le rapport n’établit aucun cas de malversations mais recommande que ses observations sur le Cyber Village soient soumises à l’Icac pour un “full probe”. S’il est abusif de parler de “fraude” sur la base de faits établis à ce stade, il n’en reste pas moins qu’il faut effectivement apporter un éclairage sur certains points. Par exemple, il faut savoir pourquoi la construction des immeubles résidentiels et les travaux d’infrastructure au Cyber Village ont coûté Rs 540 millions alors que le “Quantity Surveyor” de la MHC les avait estimés à Rs 398 millions. De même, il faut que les premiers administrateurs de BPML expliquent pourquoi ils n’ont pas commandé une étude de faisabilité du projet mais se sont contentés d’un “Concept document”.

Cela dit, nous devons réserver un accueil circonspect à quelques remarques contenues dans le rapport et dont le ton n’est pas totalement neutre. Quand les auteurs du rapport écrivent “one Jean Mée Desveaux” pour désigner le conseiller spécial de l’ancien Premier ministre, cela suscite des interrogations. Puis, on comprend mal les raisons qui ont motivé les commentaires du comité Balgobin sur une question qui a été à l’origine d’une vive polémique avant les législatives de 2005. Il s’agit de la paternité du projet de la Cybercité. Le comité n’hésite pas à trancher en faveur de Navin Ramgoolam : “The country badly needed this fifth pillar as was negotiated by the actual Prime Minister in Delhi during his previous term in office as mentioned by Shri Manmohan Singh in his address for the inauguration ceremony of Cybertower 1.” Ce commentaire était superflu car la question de paternité ne relevait pas des attributions du comité. De plus le discours de Manmohan Singh, prononcé le 1er avril 2005, avait soulevé de sérieuses protestations. Un ancien ministre l’avait qualifié de poisson d’avril. Après le rapport Balgobin, on nage toujours dans les eaux troubles de la polémique.