Advanced Search

Statement before the Ministry of Labour and Industrial Relations on 4 September 2025

4 September 2025

  1. On 25 August 2025, the Bank of Mauritius (“the Bank”) issued a Communiqué, as per annexure, regarding Mr Rughoobar’s interdiction by the Bank.
  2. On 29 August 2025, the Bank wrote to Mr Rughoobar, drawing his attention to the following paragraphs of the Bank’s Terms and Conditions of Employment, inter alia:

2.1.9(a): Every employee is also required to maintain a highly professional attitude and conduct; and refrain from any conduct that may adversely affect or impair: the name and good repute of the Bank;

2.1.10 (b): Every employee shall behave towards his colleagues, any customer, and towards the public in general with civility and respect, and without partiality or preference;

2.2.28: All staff members of the Bank are expected to act as role models of ethical behaviour in the eyes of the customers and the general public at large.

  1. On 29 August 2025, the Bank, assisted by counsel, attended a meeting held by the Honourable Minister of Labour, Industrial Relations & Employment (“the Minister”) and his officers at the Ministry, in presence of Mr Rughoobar, his counsel, and trade unionists Messrs Luximun Badal and Narendranath Gopee. The Minister requested the Bank to lift Mr Rughoobar’s interdiction, and a meeting was fixed for today for the Bank to communicate its stand.
  2. On 2 September 2025, Mr Rughoobar sent his ‘show cause’ letter to the Bank, wherein:
  1. He has averred that he did make a report to the former Second Deputy Governor (SDG), Mr Gerard Sanspeur on 16 July 2025 which the latter duly acknowledged;
  2. Since the former SDG had not informed the Bank of any such communication, the Bank has today requested Mr Rughoobar to provide a copy of the said exchange whereupon the latter has done so; and
  3. The Bank will now consider this new element which was hitherto not to its knowledge, with a view to making a determination thereon.
  1. Today, the Bank has, after anxious consideration, decided that it respectfully cannot accede to the Minister’s request, and is duty bound to maintain Mr Rughoobar’s interdiction, for the following reasons:
  1. the provisional charge of ‘rogue and vagabond’ is a serious arrestable offence, for which Mr Rughoobar was arrested, detained and bailed out;
  2. Mr Rughoobar is alleged to have used obscene words to the address of the Police in a public place. If established, this will breach the following paragraphs of the Bank’s Terms and Conditions of Employment:
  1. his conduct will have adversely affected the name and good repute of the Bank [para. 2.1.9(a)];
  2. he will have failed to behave with civility and respect towards the public [para. 2.1.10(b)]; and
  3. he will have failed to act as a role model of ethical behaviour in the eyes of the public at large [para. 2.2.28];
  1.  the Bank has, in the past, suspended employees who are provisionally charged with offences which adversely affect the name and good repute of the Bank;
  2. Mr Rughoobar’s functions as analyst demand that he conducts inspections at commercial banks, thereby interacting and interfacing with the public; and
  3. Mr Rughoobar has, in his show cause letter dated 2 September 2025, informed the Bank that he has filed a complaint against the Police, for alleged physical assault, to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“the IPCC”) and the Human Rights Commission. The Bank wishes to place on record that Mr Rughoobar has never made any such complaint:
  1. on 13 July 2025: to the Weekend Court Magistrate, before whom he appeared on the day of his arrest;
  2. on 14 July 2025: to the Grand Port District Court Magistrate, before whom he appeared and was bailed out; 
  3. on 16 July 2025: to the Bank, to whom he wrote to say that he attended the District Court of Grand Port on 14 July 2025 “in relation to a provisional charge stemming from an incident reported on 13 July 2025 at the Mahebourg Police Station”; and
  4. on 24 July 2025: to the Bank, to whom he wrote to say that the Police did not provide him with any information pertaining to the provisional charge.
  1. In light of the above, and being given that it has no say in the matter, the Bank hereby urges Mr Rughoobar, through his counsel, to make representations to the relevant prosecution authorities to expedite their decision-making process regarding him, with a view to a speedy disposal of the matter. This shall be in the best interests of both Mr Rughoobar and the Bank.
Available as :