A controversy is brewing in Mauritius over the authority of Kreeti Devi Jugasing Harrah, who served as Officer-in-Charge of the Mauritius Investment Corporation (MIC) from November 2024 to June 2026. Menlo Park, a company affected by her actions, claims that Harrah acted without proper authority when she froze around 45 million rupees belonging to the company. The company asserts that the mandate signed by then-Governor Rama Sithanen was without value.
Harrah was appointed to her position on November 21, 2024, and within two weeks, she had obtained an order to freeze Menlo Park's assets. The order was based on an affidavit submitted by Harrah in support of a Mareva injunction application. Menlo Park disputes the validity of the mandate, arguing that it was ultra vires and did not follow the required procedures. The company's challenge centers on the fact that the MIC's constitution requires the power to litigate to be signed by the president or another administrator, based on a council decision.
The letter of authorization, signed by Governor Sithanen on December 5, 2024, allowed Harrah to engage in and defend proceedings, represent the MIC, and testify in court. However, Menlo Park argues that this letter was not a valid mandate, as it was not based on a council resolution. Furthermore, the company notes that at the time the letter was issued, neither the MIC nor the Bank of Mauritius had a reconstituted council, which raises questions about who could have conferred authority on Harrah.
Menlo Park's challenge has significant implications for the freezing of its assets. If the mandate is deemed invalid, Harrah would not have had the authority to initiate the action that led to the freeze. The company points to Harrah's own affidavit, in which she acknowledges not having all the facts and documents at the time the demand for repayment was made. Additionally, she confirmed that the investment had been approved by the MIC council, which contradicts the public narrative of a fraudulent operation that was never validated.
The controversy highlights the importance of proper authorization and governance within the MIC. Menlo Park's allegations suggest that Harrah may have acted on instructions from higher authorities, rather than taking independent action. The company's challenge is not against Harrah personally but against the validity of the mandate and the actions taken under it. The Bank of Mauritius has been served with a notice and has a month to respond to the allegations.
The case raises questions about the governance and oversight of the MIC and the Bank of Mauritius. If the allegations are proven, it could have significant implications for the management of the MIC and the validity of its actions. The incident also underscores the need for clear lines of authority and proper governance within state-owned enterprises.
The dispute between Menlo Park and the MIC is ongoing, with the Bank of Mauritius yet to respond to the allegations. The outcome of the case will likely have significant implications for the parties involved and may lead to changes in the governance and management of the MIC.
Key points
- Menlo Park challenges the authority of Kreeti Harrah, claiming she acted without proper mandate.
- The controversy centers on the freezing of 45 million rupees belonging to Menlo Park.
- The case raises questions about governance and oversight within the MIC and the Bank of Mauritius.
