The Dayal Saga: Questions to the Attorney General

On 05 March 2018, the MSM led Government discretely agreed to pay the sum of
Rs15,160,782.28 to MSM member of parliament, Raj Dayal. The latter was forced to resign as Minister
of Environment and is currently being prosecuted for corruption before the Intermediate Court.
Shielding behind the veil of Mediation Court Rules until Saturday 02 June, 2018, the Attorney General
decided to speak openly about the whole matter during a press conference. Having done so, it is now
incumbent upon him to relate the whole saga. The public would like to be enlightened on the following
matters:

(1) Dayal’s cases were lodged on 09, 26 and 27 May 2014 respectively before the Supreme Court.
The Attorney General’s Office raised preliminary points in law namely that (a) the action is time
barred as per section 4 of the Public Officers Protection Act ( which states inter alia that the
action should be entered within two years from the date of the fact, act, or omission which has
given rise to the action, suit, or other proceeding) and (b) there had been failure to give one
month’s previous notice prior to entering the civil action as per section 4(2)(a) of the Public
Officers Protection Act. Dayal was suspended as Commissioner of Police on 23 November, 1997
and dismissed on 30 January, 2000. It would seem that the case was entered clearly outside the
prescribed statutory delay. Despite these pertinent preliminary points in law raised by his own
Office, what motivated the Attorney General to agree to send the case for mediation on 04
October, 2017 and subsequently reach an agreement?
(2) The Attorney General stated that Dayal has been paid his salary from his dismissal to the time
he would have retired in normal circumstances. Is that a normal practice for a civil servant, or
for that instance any employee, who has been dismissed to be compensated in that way?
(3) Dayal has been paid the sum of Rs 15,160,782.23 of tax payers’ money. It is normal practice to
seek and obtain Cabinet approval for the settlement of a case exceeding Rs 1 million. The
Attorney General and the Prime Minister are duty bound to inform the population whether
Cabinet approval was sought and obtained. If so, when this was done? The Attorney General
had been Counsel for Dayal in the past. Did he present the Cabinet Memorandum himself and
did he declare his interest?
(4) The Attorney General stated on Saturday 02 June that Dayal had been a victim of the previous
Government. It is worth refreshing the Attorney General’s mind that Dayal was dismissed in
January 2000 and an MSM/MMM Government led the country from September 2000 to July
2005. If the MSM believed in what the Attorney General stated, then why was no corrective
action taken by the then Government?
(5) The Attorney General went as far as stating that the decision to dismiss Dayal in 2000 was
flawed. The Attorney General seems to forget that Dayal had at first to face a Commission of
Enquiry chaired by former Chief Justice Bernard Sik Yuen and subsequently a Tribunal chaired by
 another former Chief Justice, Rajsoomer Lallah in compliance with section 93 of the
Constitution. Is the Attorney General now challenging the decision of these two instances?

I firmly believe the Attorney General is duty bound to reply to the above to shed light on what
appears to be a shady dealing in the face of political blackmail.

YATIN VARMA