Actu de l'ile Maurice
Actualités

Un manuel pour l’application d’un système de ‘whistleblowing’ dans les entreprises

un manuel d’élaboration intitulé «Audit Committee Guidelines for Evaluating Whistleblowing  Systems» sera lancé ce mercredi 12 septembre au Henessy Park Hotel à Ébène.

Le combat de la Mauritius Institute of Directors (MIoD) pour lutter contre la corruption notamment dans les entreprises est sans relâche. En effet, après avoir mis en place un «Whistleblower Council» avec la collaboration de Transparency Mauritius en 2015, c’est désormais un manuel élaboré qui sera lancé. La MIoD procèdera au lancement d’un manuel d’élaboration intitulé «Audit Committee Guidelines for Evaluating Whistleblowing  Systems» ce mercredi 12 septembre au Henessy Park Hotel à Ébène.

La MIoD reitère son initiative d’encourager les dénonciateurs de corruption et de pratiques douteuses au sein des entreprises, à venir de l’avant sans s’inquiéter des représailles. Pour ce faire, il faut des lois et des systèmes adaptés assurant la protection des «whistleblowers» pour ainsi les motiver à se joindre à eux dans cette lutte.

C’est justement dans cette optique que la MIoD et Transparency Mauritius lanceront ce mercredi un manuel qui consiste justement à élaborer des stratégies et des conseils adaptés pour implémenter et promouvoir davantage un système de «whistleblowing» dans les entreprises.

A cet effet, différents intervenants, Rajen Bablee (executive Director de Transparency Mauritius, Georges Leung Shing (Chairman de l’Audit Committee Forum) Jacques Dinan (Consultant) Gilbert Bouic (Consultant Ethics Officer du Groupe Terra) conduiront un panel de discussions pour prodiguer des conseils adaptés afin d’implémenter un système de «whistleblowing» dans les entreprises et ainsi les sensibiliser à entreprendre des recherches sur les bonnes pra­tiques relatives à la protection des ‘whistleblowers’.

Il faut savoir que la protection des dénonciateurs est maintenant reconnue comme faisant partie du droit international. En 2003, les Nations Unies ont adopté la Convention contre la corruption. Cette convention a ensuite été signée par 140 nations, dont Maurice et ratifiée, acceptée, approuvée officiellement par 137 nations. Les articles 32 et 33 de la Convention des Nations Unies approuvent la protection des dénonciateurs.

Au niveau de l’ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) la section 48 et 49 de la Prevention of Corruption Act 2002 (avec amendements) évoque la protection des dénonciateurs dans les cas de corruption qui s’explique comme suit :

 The Prevention of Corruption Act 2002

  1. Protection of informers

(1) Where the Commission receives information in confidence to the effect that an act of corruption has occurred, that information and the identity of the informer shall be secret between the Commission and the informer, and all matters relating to such information shall be privileged and shall not be disclosed in any proceedings before any court, tribunal or other authority.

(2) Where any record, which is given in evidence or liable to inspection in any civil, criminal or other proceedings, contains an entry relating to the informer or the information given by the informer, the Director-General shall cause all parts relating to the informer or the information given to be concealed from view so as to protect the identity of the informer.

Amended by [Act No. 24 of 2005]

  1. Protection of witnesses

(1) Subject to subsection (6), where a person-

(a) discloses to a member of the Board or an officer that a person, public official, body corporate or public body is or has been involved in an act of corruption; and

(b) at the time he makes the disclosure, believes on reasonable grounds that the information he discloses may be true and is of such a nature as to warrant an investigation under this Act, he shall incur no civil or criminal liability as a result of such disclosure.

(2) Subject to subsection (6), where a public official-

(a) discloses to his responsible officer or to the Director-General that an act of corruption may have occurred within the public body in which he is employed; and

(b) believes on reasonable grounds that the information is true, he shall incur no civil or criminal liability as a result of such disclosure and no disciplinary action shall be started against him by reason only of such disclosure.

(3) A person who makes a disclosure under subsection (1) or (2) shall assist the Commission in any investigation which the Commission may make in relation to the matters disclosed by him.

(4) A person to whom a disclosure is made under subsection (1) or (2) shall not, without the consent of the person making the disclosure, divulge the identity of that person except where it is necessary to ensure that the matters to which the information relates are properly investigated.

(5) A person who commits an act of victimisation against a person who has made a disclosure under subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to pay a fine not exceeding 50,000 rupees and to imprisonment not exceeding one year.

(6) A person who makes a false disclosure under subsection (1) or (2) knowing it to be false shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to pay a fine not exceeding 50,000 rupees and to imprisonment not exceeding one year.

(7) In this section, “victimisation” means an act –

(a) which causes injury, damage or loss;

(b) of intimidation or harassment;

(c) of discrimination, disadvantage or adverse treatment in relation to a person’s employment; or

(d) amounting to threats of reprisals.

Amended by [Act No. 24 of 2005]

 MIoD : un manuel pour implémenter un système de «whistleblowing» dans les entreprises