High-Profile Appointments and Transparency: Are We Doing Enough?

Qs & As

By Lex

Transparency and accountability in governance are fundamental to upholding public trust and preventing corruption. Around the world, many countries have implemented laws requiring individuals in strategic or high-profile positions to disclose their assets, liabilities, and financial interests. These measures aim to deter misconduct, mitigate conflicts of interest, and reinforce institutional integrity. However, the effectiveness of such regulations varies across jurisdictions.
In this week’s Q&A column, LEX explores Mauritius’ approach to asset declaration and how it measures up against international best practices in enforcement and transparency. This issue is particularly relevant now, as the newly elected government moves forward with appointing high-ranking officials, advisers, and CEOs of state-owned enterprises. Given past experiences under different governments, it is crucial to learn from previous shortcomings and ensure that the same failures are not repeated.

* In many countries, laws, regulations, or guidelines require individuals appointed to strategic or high-profile positions to declare their assets, liabilities, and interests, such as financial holdings, business affiliations, and property ownership, to promote transparency, uphold integrity, and prevent conflicts of interest. How does Mauritius compare to other nations in terms of enforcing this?

According to a study conducted by the OECD, a large number of countries around the world have introduced systems of asset declaration for public officials in order to prevent or combat corruption. Many believe that asset declarations can be a powerful tool in this regard; however, the impact of such systems on actual levels of corruption is not well known.

The aim, however, is to increase transparency and citizen trust in public administration by disclosing information about the assets of politicians and civil servants, showing that they have nothing to hide. This also helps heads of public institutions prevent conflicts of interest among their employees and resolve such situations when they arise, in order to promote integrity within institutions.

It also monitors wealth variations of politicians and civil servants to dissuade them from misconduct and protect them from false accusations, as well as clarifies the full scope of illicit enrichment or other illegal activity by providing additional evidence.

This philosophy is reflected in the Mauritius Declaration of Assets Act.

* Are there specific laws or guidelines mandating interest disclosures for key appointments in the public sector?
The Declaration of Assets is embodied in the Declaration of Assets Act, enacted in 2018 and coming into force in 2019. The Act follows more or less what obtains in other major democratic European countries. It requires public officers, including top civil servants, to make comprehensive declarations of their assets and those of their spouse and children. Judicial officers are excluded. Employees of the Financial Crime Commission (FCC) must declare to the Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA), while other officers make their declarations to the FCC (formerly ICAC).

* How effective are these declarations of interests in practice?
The law is effective in the sense that it covers a wide range of persons, including those in State Enterprises, who are compelled to make a declaration.

Furthermore, the definition of assets is extensive and includes a wide spectrum of assets. These are:
(a) money in any currency, in local and foreign banks;
(b) cash in hand exceeding one million rupees; in any currency accepted as legal tender in any country;
(c) securities, including stocks, bonds, treasury bills, or other units held in Mauritius or abroad;
(d) shares or any interest in a company, société, or partnership;
(e) any item of jewellery, precious stone, or metal, or watch, exceeding 500,000 rupees in value;
(f) any freehold or leasehold immovable property – (i) registered in Mauritius or abroad; (ii) which, at the time of declaration, has been purchased but is still subject to registration in Mauritius or abroad; motor vehicles, boats, ships or aircrafts;
(g) assets held by a person for and on behalf of the declarant in the declarant’s capacity as ultimate beneficiary;

* Are the current interest disclosure regulations and practices aligned with international best practices, or do gaps remain in ensuring full transparency and accountability?
Our law is aligned with international practices. The law defines who must declare, including:

(a) every member of the National Assembly, including the Speaker of the National Assembly, and every Minister;

(b) every member of the Rodrigues Regional Assembly, including the Chairperson of the Rodrigues Regional Assembly, and every Commissioner;

(c) every Councillor of a Municipal City Council, Municipal Town Council or District Council;

(d) every Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of a Municipal City Council, Municipal Town Council or District Council, as the case may be;

(e) every senior public officer;

(f) every Chief Executive of a Municipal City Council, Municipal Town Council or District Council, and every officer of such Councils drawing salary in a scale the initial point of which is equivalent to the initial point of the salary scale of Deputy Permanent Secretary and above;

(g) every Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of State-owned enterprises and statutory bodies, and every officer of such enterprises and statutory bodies drawing salary in a scale the initial point of which is equivalent to the initial point of the salary scale of Deputy Permanent Secretary and above;

(h) every adviser and officer employed on a contractual basis in Ministries, drawing salary in a scale the initial point of which is equivalent to the initial point of the salary scale of Deputy Permanent Secretary and above; and
(i) such other persons as may be prescribed.

Declarants are obliged to update their declarations if there is a change in the status of their assets.

* What mechanisms exist to verify the accuracy and completeness of declared interests? Are there independent bodies tasked with auditing and reviewing the interests of high-profile appointees?
The institutions receiving the declarations, such as the FCC or the MRA, have the means to verify the accuracy of the declarations.

* Are there specific roles or institutions that require stricter interest disclosure requirements?

The law currently mandates a wide range of individuals to declare their assets, including members of the National Assembly and municipal councillors. One of the most vulnerable areas for corruption remains the awarding of contracts. Officers responsible for these decisions, including the ministers in charge, are required to declare their assets. However, if an official has already accepted a bribe and has had time to conceal the illicit funds, detecting hidden assets becomes significantly more challenging. This is an area where stricter legal provisions could be considered to enhance oversight and enforcement.

Notably, judicial officers are excluded from the scope of the law, though the rationale for their exemption remains unclear. Regular asset declarations by judicial officers would not only promote transparency but also reinforce public confidence in the judiciary.

Until thorough investigations and prosecutions take place, it is difficult to determine which other institutions should be brought under the law’s purview and what additional measures should be introduced to strengthen accountability.

* Should the interest disclosures of high-profile appointees be made accessible to the public? If so, how?

The FCC is responsible for receiving, disclosing, and monitoring the declaration of assets and liabilities of high public officials to detect and investigate corruption, money laundering, and unexplained wealth.

Under ICAC, asset disclosures — excluding bank account details — could be made public. A similar provision may apply under the FCC.

* What penalties or consequences are in place for failure to disclose or for providing false declarations?
Any person who fails to make a declaration or wilfully makes a false or incomplete disclosure commits an offense and, upon conviction, is liable to a heavy fine.

While no prosecutions have occurred under the Declaration of Assets Act, the law remains broad enough to penalize those who contravene it.

* Politicians often prefer appointing individuals they trust or with whom they share a personal rapport to key positions in the civil service, government bodies, and state-owned enterprises. This pattern has been evident across successive governments. What’s your take on that?

While this practice is not uncommon in politics, it raises concerns about meritocracy, transparency, and the overall efficiency of public institutions. Such appointments, if based on loyalty rather than competence, can undermine public confidence and hinder the effective functioning of these entities.

It is crucial to learn from past controversies and failures related to transparency in high-profile appointments. Ensuring a fair and merit-based selection process should be a priority to strengthen governance and public trust.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 31 January 2025