Les réponses parlementaires concernant Noel Callow

Turf Magazine publie dans son intégralité les réponses parlemenrtaires du Premier ministre, Sir Anerood Jugnauth, suite aux question du Parlementaire Rajesh Bhagwan à l’assemblée nationale le 28 juin dernier.
The Honourable First Member for Beau Bassin and Petite Rivière (Mr Bhagwan)
To ask the Right Honourable Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Home Affairs, Minister for Rodrigues and National Development Unit –
Whether, in regard to Jockey C., he will (a) for the benefit of the House, obtain from the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA), information as to if the Mauritius Turf Club (MTC) has reported thereto that the Steward found him guilty of breach of MTC Rule 160(A) in Race 8 of the 9th Meeting of Saturday 21 May 2016 and, if so, indicate if (i) he was suspended and, if so, give details thereof (ii) the case was referred to the Police des Jeux and thereto for further inquiries and (iii) the MTC had informed the  (GRA) of the departure thereof on Friday 27 May 2016 and (b) state if he will consider ordering an inquiry to find out whether there has been any act of connivance to allow the jockey leave the country?
SAJ:Madam Speaker, As regards part (a) of the Question, I am advised by the Gambling Regulatory Authority, that the Mauritius Turf Club did not notify, forthwith, as per the Directive issued on 16 October 2015, the Authority that the Racing Stewards found Jockey C. guilty of breach of MTC Rule 160(A) in Race 8 of the 9th Meeting of Saturday 21 May 2016.
The information was obtained by the Gambling Regulatory Authority through the Racing Stewards’ Report which reached the Authority on 25 May 2016.  
In respect of part (a) (i) of the Question, I am informed that Jockey C. was suspended for 12 weeks (3 months) and fined Rs 100,000, on 24 May 2016, for having breached Section 160 A (a) of the Rules of Racing of the Mauritius Turf Club.
With regard to part (a) (ii) of the Question, the Commissioner of Police has informed that no declaration or complaint has been made against Jockey C., to date, by the Mauritius Turf Club.
Concerning part (a) (iii) of the Question, I am advised that the Mauritius Turf Club did not inform the Gambling Regulatory Authority of the departure of Jockey C. on Friday, 27 May 2016.
With regard to part (b) of the Question, I am informed that the Gambling Regulatory Authority took the initiative to carry out an inquiry into the matter.
On 07 June 2016, the Mauritius Turf Club was convened at the Gambling Regulatory Authority to show cause, to the Board, as to why it did not comply with Directive 4, issued on 16 October 2016, by the Gambling Regulatory Authority, under Section 100 of the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007. Directive No 4 reads, I quote:
“Where the Mauritius Turf Club has decided to apply sanctions against a jockey, it shall, forthwith, notify the Gambling Regulatory Authority, the Mauritius Revenue Authority and the Passport and Immigration Office.”
According to the Mauritius Turf Club, the Stewards’ Report, dispatched to the Gambling Regulatory Authority, on 25 May 2016, was self-explanatory and they did not deem it necessary or compulsory to address a formal letter to the Authority.
Following the hearing, the Board of the Gambling Regulatory Authority took the decision that henceforth, the Mauritius Turf Club should notify the Authority by way of an official and duly signed letter immediately after it takes the decision to apply a sanction to any Jockey.  A letter was accordingly issued thereon, on 10 June 2016, to the Mauritius Turf Club, through special despatch.
Madam Speaker,
My Office has inquired on whether there has been any connivance to allow Jockey C. to leave the country.  I am informed that the Mauritius Turf Club, upon query by the Police des Jeux, provided its no objection to the Jockey leaving the country.  On that basis, the Police des Jeux provided their no objection as well to the Passport and Immigration Office.  The Mauritius Revenue Authority also issued a no objection letter after the Jockey paid his tax dues.
Therefore, it has been ascertained that all the clearances had been obtained for the jockey to leave the country.  No connivance could be established.
However, the Gambling Regulatory Authority has initiated action to plug the loopholes at the level of its Directives and other regulations to ensure stricter compliance and closer collaboration among institutions to prevent recurrence of such happenings.