Copyright mauritiustimes
‘The government must provide evidence of the alleged misconduct or sabotage‘ The Prime Minister, reacting to the police questioning and seizure of a journalist’s devices (Narain Jasodanand) over allegations against the Bank of Mauritius Governor, publicly denounced the action. He claimed the incident occurred without the knowledge of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Commissioner of Police, alleging it was an act of “sabotage” by stooges from the previous regime who are trying to undermine the current government. This week’s Qs & As examines the specific actions the government can legally take — from formal disciplinary processes and mandatory transfers to the difficult task of proving misconduct/sabotage while respecting the fundamental principles of job security and political neutrality. * At a press conference last Saturday, the Prime Minister commented on the police questioning of journalist Narain Jasodanand. The journalist had levelled allegations against the Governor of the Bank of Mauritius and his son. The Prime Minister stated that neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor the Commissioner of Police was made aware of the action, which he claimed was an act of sabotage by “stooges” from the previous government. The Prime Minister’s statement lends credence to a similar accusation made earlier by the Minister of Education, who claimed that officials in his ministry were also carrying out acts of “sabotage.” If those claims are true, what course of action should the government take? Instead of delaying action, the government should take firm and decisive steps to identify and address those officials who are allegedly impeding or sabotaging the implementation of the new administration’s mandate. Allowing internal resistance, potentially driven by residual loyalties or a reluctance to shift from the previous regime’s operational “culture,” hinders effective governance. If governmental decisions regarding civil servants — including postings, promotions, or disciplinary measures — are perceived to be guided primarily by political considerations, family connections, caste, or race, officials who are resisting the new policies will be emboldened to continue their uncooperative actions. The actions of civil servants must adhere to established professional standards. As stated in the ‘Code of Ethics for Civil Servants’ (prepared by Mr Suresh Seeballuck): “Ministers bear political responsibility for government policies and Public Officers have a long-established role in assisting with the development as well as implementation of such policies. The relationship between Public Officers and Ministers shall be based on mutual trust and confidence. Public Officers shall work with their Ministers to the best of their abilities, with integrity, courtesy and respect.” The government must ensure that this professional standard of mutual trust and diligent cooperation is enforced to ensure the effective functioning of the public service. * If the government believes a civil servant has committed misconduct, it must follow a formal disciplinary process — issuing a charge, giving the official a chance to respond, and conducting a formal inquiry. The Public Service Commission (PSC) ultimately makes the final decision on any disciplinary action, including dismissal. But that’s a long and hazardous process, isn’t it? It is and it is not. The Head of the Civil Service can identify the culprits and request the Public Service Commission to take appropriate action. What causes the delay is the repeated request by the lawyers representing the civil servant before a disciplinary committee. Here, the ball would be in the camp of the members of the disciplinary committee, who should be firm. * What is the specific legal definition of misconduct for a civil servant in this context? Does “sabotage” or “political sympathy” meet that definition? Misconduct by a civil servant is a serious, deliberate breach of established rules, codes of conduct, or duties that negatively impacts the integrity of the public service or the public’s trust. It encompasses acts like corruption, dishonesty, misuse of public resources, harassment, and gross negligence, and it can result in severe disciplinary actions, including dismissal from their position. “Sabotage” would fall under the definition of misconduct. While the word “sabotage” may not be explicitly listed in the regulations, the act itself would constitute a severe form of misconduct. Sabotage, which involves intentionally damaging or hindering operations, directly violates several key duties of a civil servant * Isn’t it correct to state that, simply put, the government cannot easily dismiss civil servants given that the law provides job security to prevent politically motivated or arbitrary firings? Yes, there is a security of employment for civil servants. But employment carries responsibility and obligations. In the Seeballuck ‘Code of Ethics’, the factors that should guide a civil servant are clearly set out. * We presume that simply being a “sympathiser” of a previous government is not a legal ground for dismissal; the government must provide evidence of the alleged misconduct or sabotage, isn’t it? In the ‘Code of Ethics’, it is clearly stated that: “Whatever be their own political beliefs, Public Officers owe loyalty to the Government of the day. They should always serve the Government of the day. Public Officers should observe political neutrality in their day-to-day functions and avoid activities likely to impair, or seen to impair, their political impartiality or the political impartiality of the Civil Service. They should not, therefore, act in a way that is determined by party political considerations or use official resources for party purposes.” If a civil servant cannot subscribe to this principle, either he quits or is made to quit. The government must provide evidence of the alleged misconduct or sabotage. Simply being a “sympathiser” of a previous government is not indeed a legal ground for dismissal. The actions must constitute a breach of duty, such as insubordination, dereliction of duty, or misuse of office. However, proving that an action was intentionally taken to “sabotage” the government can be difficult without clear evidence of intent. * Are there any precedents where the PSC has ruled on a case of alleged politically motivated misconduct or sabotage by a civil servant? No, not to my knowledge. But if a civil servant is believed not to be politically neutral or is sabotaging the work of the government, he must be dealt with. In Guyana, there is an Integrity Commission Act that makes it a legal offence to disobey the Civil Servants’ Code of Conduct. Such an act in Mauritius would be a significant step toward strengthening public accountability and fighting corruption by clearly defining misconduct as an offence and establishing an independent body to enforce ethical standards. * What are the legal limits on the government’s power to “clean up” the civil service? The government cannot clean up the civil service wholesale. The work of the State must continue irrespective of the political allegiance of civil servants. Recently, the Head of the Civil Service, Mr C. Seeballuck, reminded all civil servants of their obligations and duties. This is a good move. However, he should go further by holding regular meetings with civil servants in each ministry to personally reinforce the Code of Ethics. Crucially, every civil servant must be provided with a copy of the Code. Furthermore, the Permanent Secretary of each ministry must be held accountable for ensuring their officials consistently maintain professional and ethical standards. * Could a civil servant who is disciplined or fired on these grounds successfully sue the government for wrongful termination? What would be the legal basis for their claim? A civil servant may apply to the Supreme Court for a judicial review. Such applications are, however, rarely successful. The Court will not interfere with findings of fact made by the original decision-maker. Instead, the Court’s role is to ensure that the decision-making process itself is not flawed — specifically, by determining whether the proper procedure was followed and the rights of the civil servant were respected. * Besides formal disciplinary action, are there any other legal tools or mechanisms the government could use to address this issue? For example, can an official be reassigned or transferred against their will? Yes. The Head of the Civil Service (or the competent appointing authority) generally holds the legal power to transfer or reassign a civil servant without their consent. This mechanism is a common administrative tool and is a valid legal means to address various issues, including operational necessity, professional development, and even internal friction. Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 26 September 2025
