M Rafic Soormally (guest)

Born of Hindustani parents, Idrice Soormally and Bibi Rabiah Soormally (born Chaumoo) in Curepipe, and holder of Accounting, Finance, Economics (including Politics), Marketing and Law qualifications, I have been writing since 2000. Several of my articles have been published in Mauritius, Pakistan, Iran, UK. I also write regularly for the Mauritian Abroad Magazine in the UK. Many of my articles have been posted across the web, ranging from the Washington Post to Netherlands Radio Worldwide.

Should a Minister resign for the consequences of an Act of God?

By M Rafic Soormally (guest)
Published 31st March, 2008

The first human reaction to any death caused by « Acts of God », or otherwise, is to express deep sympathy and solidarity with the bereaved families and not to try and extract political gains out of them. In the torrential rain case, the failure of Dharam Ghokool, Minister for Education, is one of failure to act in the absence of an official warning being issued by the Met Office.

Further to the torrential rains which battered Mauritius on Wednesday 26^th March 2008, four people, including a 13 year old College student, sadly lost their lives, having been carried away by flood currents. The tropical island of Mauritius is no stranger to cyclones and heavy rains, and the authorities are usually quick off the mark in taking appropriate steps and issuing relevant warnings for the safety of the population.In the recent case of cyclone Gula, the authorities issued a warning of Class III, when all schools were closed and students sent home, and employers also sent home their employees to secure their homes and stay safe. However, that warning was lifted only 40 minutes later, and the authorities were then criticised for incompetence as there was no ensuing danger to the population.What went wrong in the case of the torrential rains on the 26^th March 2008 when it turned out that there was in fact imminent danger to lives but the authorities were slow to act?

Mr Mamade Beebeejaun, Deputy Director at the Meteorological Station states in an interview published in l'Express dated 29^th March 2008 that the data available to him at 4am on Wednesday the 26^th showed that only two stations recorded 100mm of rain and that this was not sufficient to issue a warning for torrential rains. For such a warning to be issued, under the present guidelines and procedures, the record would need to be more widespread, he says.Although, given the persistent rain, Mr Beebeejaun felt inclined to issue a warning of cyclonic rains that morning, his Director advised him to consider the Gula's episode. However, a meteorological communiqué was broadcasted on the radio advising pupils and students to exercise due care in such weather.It is understood that the meteorological report was sent to Mr Dharam Gokhool, Minister for Education, who has the power to close schools and colleges, but the Minister decided not to act given that there was no official warning issued for torrential rains and consequently felt that there was no imminent danger to life. The warning was only issued at 11am when the Minister decided to act, and children were sent home. One student and three adults sadly lost their lives as a direct result of the torrential rains.It is indisputable that at least the life of the student could or would have been saved if the warning were issued earlier or, irrespective of the warning, if the Minister had opted for prudence in the circumstances.

Extrapolation
The circumstances are that heavy rains have been battering the island since Saturday 22^nd of March and the intensity was growing. Although Mr Beebeejaun may be right in stating that rain intensity cannot be accurately assessed just by observing the clouds, a simple line graph based on historical rain data collected since 22^nd March 2008 in a climate of continuous rain could have been extrapolated within a margin of error to forecast any imminent torrential rain (assuming the forecast would have been accurate) which would have justified a warning much earlier than 11am. Only the Fact-Finding Committee investigation could highlight any failure in the analyses and interpretation of such data.

But where does this leave the Minister for Education Dharam Ghokool? Should he have acted in the absence of an official warning? Or, was he too busy elsewhere? Had he acted earlier, it is clear that the life of the student Laura Paul could have been saved, but the fate of the other three adults were 'out of his hands', so to speak. Someone else should be held responsible too. Or, were they victims of an Act of God? This is not a railway disaster which can be ascribed to negligence, human error, technical failure or inadequate maintenance and where the Railways Minister should be held responsible and should resign, like in the Indian train disaster in West Bengal in August 1999 when Railways Minister Nitish Kumar resigned. Cyclonic weather conditions, earthquakes, volcanoes, typhoons, twisters, etc. are Acts of God which are unavoidable. Decisions are taken on forecasts and probabilities.

In the UK, Michael Fish wrongly predicted on television that there was no hurricane coming to the UK on 16^th October 1987, and during the night the country was battered with gale force winds causing extensive damage to property and loss of life. No Minister resigned. The ensuing disaster was put down to an Act of God and wrong forecasts. The Mauritian Met Office performed much better in that they did correctly predict heavy (although not torrential) rains, and even advised the population to exercise prudence. Instead of sympathising with the victims' families and finding ways to help them overcome their grief, it is unacceptable that the opposition should attempt to make political gains out of this sad situation and demand resignations right, left and centre. The same opposition politicians who criticised the authorities for issuing a warning in the case of cyclone Gula also criticise them, this time, for not issuing a warning for cyclonic rains which the Met Office could not predict. This is sheer opportunism.

Absence of official warning
The failure of Dharam Ghokool is one of failure to act by relying uniquely on the absence of an official warning and of showing 'incompetence' in dealing with the ensuing problem. According to Défi Plus [Ref. « La phrase de trop », Subash Gobine], in the morning of 26^th March Radio Plus reported cases of flooding in schools in the North and East of the island while the Minister was attending the Annual General Meeting of the Mauritius Employers Federation. As a Minister, did he fail to use his discretion properly in the light of other factors he detained regarding the continuously deteriorating weather conditions? The Minister was also condemned for having declared that there was only one student's death among 350,000 students who went to school that day, thus treating the loss of 13-year old Laura Paul as a mere statistic. But the Minister explained that he was not properly reported and that he had in fact said that he had : « assuré la sécurité de tous les enfants et que malheureusement un est décédé dans des circonstances dramatiques » [l'Express, 29 March 2008]. He went on to apologise for any distress caused and for having been misunderstood. In the circumstances, Mr Ghokool should put his apology in writing to the bereaved family of the deceased student and also explain his comments to them face to face. But given the all-round dissatisfaction with the Minister, especially from the bereaved family and the Government Teachers' Union, not to mention that he was at the MEF on the crucial morning of the 26^th March when some schools were already flooded, a pragmatic and honourable Minister would reconsider his position.

M Rafic Soormally
London

Spread The Word

5 Responses to "Should a Minister resign for the consequences of an Act of God?"

A Citizen

said this on 01 Apr 2008 11:10:07 AM MUT

First of all i have to say that i agree or disagree with the article, I just want to say my point of view unlike others posting. What I have learnt all these years about ministerial responsibility is that whenever a minister is being blamed and that his position is in jeopardy or losing public confidence in his department, in most countries, the US, UK, India, the ministers have resigned. Wahy should it be any different in mauritius, is it because they have only one chance to become ministers or is it because they want to make money during their five years at the head of a department. Act of god or not, technology is such that it helps us to see through time, isnt that the point of technology. Seems that some people either dont kno how to use the technology or are too busy filling their pockets by building schools which are now death traps after heavy rainfall. Ministerial responsibility neve existed in mauritius, the only way to get away from the ministerial post is to say something against the Prime Minister.

(Reply to this comment)

M Rafic Soormally (

Author)

said this on 01 Apr 2008 1:50:46 PM MUT

REPLY TO « A CITIZEN »

First of all, in an État de Droit, there is no obligation on any Minister to resign unless the Minister has broken the law. This is not the case here. This is politics, which is supposed to be separate from the law but which comes under the law anyway as laws are passed by politicians.

In principle, I totally agree with your statement that if a Minister has lost the confidence of his Department and of the people, he should do the honourable thing and resign; otherwise he becomes a liability to his party. This is something that the Minister Gokhool himself should decide. Or, the PM can revoke him if he feels he is to blame for not closing the schools in the absence of an official warning from the Met Office, or move him in a reshuffle as he has become unpopular.

If we wish to analyse this serious problem objectively, everyone should point the finger to the Met Office. They are the experts in climatology and they got their torrential rains forecast very wrong. Mr Beebeejaun, the Deputy Director, said that he was inclined to issue such a warning even though only 2 stations registered 100mm of rain, but his Director was concerned of getting it wrong just like in the case of recent cyclone Gula when they issued a Class III warning only to remove it 40 minutes later. Now, do you accept this as a valid reason? Since Mr Beebeejaun agrees that had the 100mm record been more widespread, under present guidelines, he would have issued such a warning, what happens to those areas which he knew would be affected by torrential rains given the data he received from those two stations?

Minister Dharam Ghokool is not to blame for relying on the ‘professionalism’ of the Met Office. However, any blame can only be secondary because, in the absence of an official warning, he can only exceptionally exercise his discretion given the information he had at hand. Head Teachers also have discretion to send students home, which many did without the green light from the Minister. The weather has been deteriorating since the 22nd of March, we are told. There were reports of schools being flooded in the early morning of the 26th March when he was attending the AGM of the MEF. Le Mauricien reported that they were receiving calls from schools and colleges in the early morning of the 26th; no doubt, the Ministry of Education was receiving such calls too. The Met Office finally issued the warning of cyclonic rains at 11am upon which the Minister took the decision. While people rushed home, four people, including one 13 year old student, sadly perished in the floods.

It is clear that the Met Office is primarily to blame for having got its forecasts wrong in the first place. Secondly, Acts of God do not depend on forecasts as they happen before people’s eyes which the Minister failed to see. But the Minister cannot be blamed for an Act of God as if it is a train disaster which could have been avoided. When Paul Bérenger tries to absolve the Met Office and put all blame squarely on Mr Ghokool and the PM Ramgoolam, he is merely playing the dirtiest of politics by taking advantage of the sad loss of human life. He is spending his time attacking the government rather than suggesting ways to help the bereaved families in coping with their terrible loss and in preventing such tragedy from happening again.

As a politician, Dharam Ghokool must know that his position has become untenable. He should have done the honourable thing and resign. But what about the responsibility of the Director of the Met Office? Because he is not a politician, he can always put it down to wrong forecasts.

M Rafic Soormally

(Reply to this comment)

A Citizen

said this on 01 Apr 2008 9:19:43 PM MUT

IN reply to your comments Mr. Soormally i see your agreement to the fact that MR.Gokhool has to resign if there is no confidence in his department. However, where I diagree is where you say it is not a matter of law. Ministerial responsibility lies as a matter of adminsitrative law where he should not only do the honourable thing but also taking responsibility for what he has done wrong. I think you should find relevant authority in any law student textbook. If his sole reliance is based on the waetehr forecast team, then it is another issue, this articles deals with ministerial responsibility. However I wish to add that if indeed the waether forecast team was wrong and did not go according to its policy decision making, then surely, actions should be taken but not by me, not by you, not by the mininister, not even by the Prime Minister, but the relevant authority entitled to do so i.e the Parliament.
Concerning Mr Berenger, I do not wish to take part in this discussion because politics is not the issue of this article.
In fact what I would reply to would be, instead of asking politicians how to prevent such tragedy, I woudl direct you to asking whether our heads of security i.e the Commissioner of Police or the Commanding officer have the adequate disaster management qualifications. Disaster management is not an art nor a science. I am sure both persons were told of the dangers of heavy rainfall and they too should have taken adequate precautions as they do for cyclone warnings. IS it because the cyclone warning disaster committee was set up before their appointment and hence they did not have to worry about it or is it because they do not know what to do at all.
I leave these questions for you to ponder.

(Reply to this comment)

M Rafic Soormally (

Author)

said this on 02 Apr 2008 1:04:42 PM MUT

REPLY2 TO « A CITIZEN »

Thank you for your comments.

The term « Ministerial responsibility » is a convention in which the Cabinet Minister has ultimate responsibility for the actions of his (or her) department. The Minister is a politician and he is advised by and relies on experts. A Minister does not have to possess any form of qualification whatsoever. If a Minister makes the wrong decision, this does not necessarily mean that has broken the law. The law is deaf to politics, but where does one draw the line. However, a Minister may be legally liable for malfeasance. In this instance, which law has Dharam Ghokool infringed? He merely acted upon the advice of the Met Office. He is completely safe on this count.

Let us take the case of the 1999 Indian train disaster in West Bengal when two trains collided head on. Now, we all know that someone has to carry the can because two trains cannot collide head on unless something went drastically wrong. This disaster was clearly avoidable, and many heads rolled. But in the case of an Act of God, meaning a natural disaster, the event in NOT avoidable. But necessary steps have to be taken to save lives. We can only rely of forecasts and predictions, which sometimes are right and sometimes are wrong. Unless one can prove that someone was grossly negligent in issuing the wrong forecast, there is nothing one can do.

The sad loss of life (3 adults and 1 child) was the result of an Act of God which neither the Met Office nor any Minister could predict. In the absence of an official warning from the Met Office, Minister Ghokool had the discretionary power to close all schools, which he could have used in exceptional circumstances. The Minister did not feel the circumstances were exceptional enough to intervene. This is where we disagree with him. The Minister cannot be accused of taking the wrong decision as he took no decision until he received the Met Report. If the teachers, students and parents do not have confidence in him any more, he should reconsider his position sooner rather than later. The Prime Minister should not revoke him unless he has a report which substantiates his decision. If Mr Ghokool chooses not to resign, which he is quite entitled to, the PM may decide to move him in a reshuffle because he has become unpopular. But had Mr Gokhool received an official warning from the Met Office and ignored it, he would have been liable. I doubt if there is a law which can hold Mr Gokhool liable for not exercising his discretion at all. It is up to the people to decide his fate, and this is what he should listen to in politics.

You rightly mention the authorities’ ‘competence’ in disaster management. Are they not there to save lives in the event of a disaster? How responsible are they? What about the condition of the roads and the guttering system – did it work properly or were the gutters blocked thus causing the roads to flood? Who are responsible for that? For some obscure reasons, many tend to forget that 4 people sadly lost their lives in this natural disaster, and the opposition is obsessed only with Mr Gokhool because, through him, they hope to bring down the government. If they believe Mr Gokhool has broken the law, they should take him to court.

M Rafic Soormally