The State Bank of Mauritius (SBM) which is the 2nd largest bank of the country decided to give the boot to one of its lady officers. Presumably the SBM had solid grounds to take such a decision which is the ultimate sanction by an employer against an employee. The SBM nevertheless offered her a sum of Rs 1 million. One is left to wonder why the SBM had to make such an offer unless the decision could not be defended objectively! If that is the case then those at the SBM who were involved in such a decision and who were so open with other people’s money must be sanctioned.

The lady being unhappy with the offer decided to go on a hunger strike. One again presumes that she reached that decision because she sincerely considered that an unfair decision had been taken by her employer. She was motivated apparently by the highest principles of upholding the right of employees to be treated fairly. She had hardly starved a couple of hours and a few minutes that the SBM, in a moment of excessive generosity with depositors’ money, increased its offer by Rs 1.4 million. The lady, against all predictions, took the new offer. So in fact it was a question of quantum all the time and never a matter of principle.

Rs 2.4 million was fine and… overboard went dignity and the fight for principles.

The SBM has no right to spend depositors’ and customers’ money in this way. This constitutes a dereliction of duty and a gross lack of prudence in the management of money which belongs to depositors. Either the SBM did not know what it was doing at the time of taking the decision of sacking her or it was wrongly advised.

Either way a sanction must be taken against all those who were instrumental in this. The Bank of Mauritius and the Financial Services Commission must investigate the matter and get the stick to fall where it must. Any other outcome is unfortunately possible as the SBM does not allow such matters to be raised and discussed at its so called annual general meetings which rubberstamp the decisions of the Board.

If a few hours of hunger strike can more than double an amount, then we really live in a country which is a ‘plaisir’. Such return on an investment is unparalleled. Even those at Ebène, which in any event is an ‘aubaine’ for its occupiers must be considering other options.

The MITD officer has been corralled into appearing before a Disciplinary Committee (DC) hearing on account of statements which he made about matters which concern the governance of that institution. He must have been advised to attend the DC instead of going on a hunger strike. Had he taken such a decision, he would have sent the shivers down the spines of all decision-makers of MITD as there is nothing that they dread more than someone going on a hunger strike. Besides he would not only have seen the DC being disbanded but he might also have got a promotion.

Such matters are shameful and give our country a reputation that the only talk is about and of money. By the way the SBM will be passing on to its depositors and customers higher bank charges.