Transparency, Accountability and the MIC

Editorial

The global economic devastation wrought by the Covid-19 pandemic compelled governments to undertake unprecedented fiscal interventions. Financial packages worth trillions of dollars were deployed to support livelihoods, save jobs, and stabilize economies. While this strategy helped prevent immediate economic collapse, it also raised serious questions about transparency, accountability, and the equitable use of public funds. For Mauritius, a small island economy with limited resources, these concerns resonate deeply.

The creation of the Mauritius Investment Corporation Ltd (MIC) as a Special Purpose Vehicle under the aegis of the Bank of Mauritius (BOM) epitomized the government’s response to the pandemic’s economic fallout. Backed by an initial allocation of Rs 60 billion, later expanded to some Rs 80 billion, the MIC aimed to mitigate systemic risks to the banking and financial sectors while supporting “distressed” companies. Since the monies came not from the BOM reserves, it was the equivalent of printing money on a massive scale, which was to have dire consequences down the road (devaluation of the currency, impairment of BOM’s financial standing, spiralling cost of living, etc). Moreover, from its inception, the MIC’s operations have been cloaked in opacity. Public concern and criticism grew louder, particularly as questions remained unanswered about the criteria for disbursement, the beneficiaries, and the outcomes of this significant injection of public funds into the economy.

Public funds are, by definition, a national asset. Whether raised through taxation, borrowing, or central bank disbursements, these funds belong to the people and should be utilized with the utmost care and accountability. When these funds are deployed to save private enterprises, it becomes even more imperative to establish and enforce clear rules and conditions to ensure their effective use. Democracy demands that public money be spent in ways that are transparent, fair, and consistent with the public interest. Unfortunately, the MIC’s track record falls short of these expectations. Despite assurances that the MIC would operate with full transparency, its operations remained shrouded in secrecy, with officials often citing confidentiality clauses as a reason for non-disclosure. This lack of openness is not only counterproductive but also fundamentally undemocratic. The public deserves to know how their resources are being used, especially when those resources are being deployed to support private enterprises.Read More… Become a Subscriber

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 13 December 2024