Police Accountability, the SST, and the DPP’s Power

Qs & As

‘Police misconduct severely damages fair trials and bail applications by jeopardizing the integrity of evidence’

By Lex

This week’s Qs & As column critically examines the constitutional powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in Mauritius, particularly as they confront major public controversies, including the Wakashio grounding and serious allegations of misconduct — such as evidence planting — against the now-disbanded Special Striking Team (SST). The focus is on the legal necessity of further investigations, the complex issues of police accountability, and the fundamental guarantee of a fair trial for the accused.

* Let’s first address the Wakashio grounding incident. The DPP has indicated, in a communique dated 19 Sep 2025, that there are “sufficient elements that would justify a police investigation” against officials responsible for monitoring the vessel. Since the DPP’s power is, to our understanding, to institute criminal proceedings, not investigations, what is the legal significance of the DPP publicly issuing this ‘view,’ and does the police force have a legal obligation to act upon this directive?

It has been a long-standing practice for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to request the police to carry out a further inquiry in any file submitted to his office if the circumstances so demand. The DPP cannot blindly accept all that is contained in a police file. He and his team of officers study the file to determine whether there are any omissions or failings in the investigation. He then sends the file back to the police for further investigation on specific lines. There is nothing wrong with this long-standing procedure.

* The DPP has requested that “further investigation” be conducted by the Police into the cases of alleged drug trafficking against Akil Bissessur, Avinash Bissessur, Doomila Devi Moheeputh, Jean Bruneau Laurette, Jean Luca Ryan Laurette, and Vimen Sabapati — cases which were all investigated by the Special Striking Team (SST) under the supervision of the same high-ranking police officers. How important is this decision of the DPP? Is it unusual for the DPP to recommend further investigations in a case of this nature?

Drug offences are very serious. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has taken note of the allegations of planting made by suspects arrested by the Special Striking Team (SST), and he has rightly qualified these allegations as very serious. While that decision may appear unusual, the underlying accusation — that evidence was planted — is itself highly irregular and strikes at the very heart of the rule of law.

* Would it be correct to say that when the DPP orders a “further investigation” where the police themselves (especially high-ranking officers) are the subject of serious allegations, the DPP must use their constitutional and procedural powers to take effective control of the investigative process?

The DPP has no power to investigate a case himself. His authority is limited to supplementing an investigation by requesting the police to conduct a further inquiry. The Constitution has very clearly allocated distinct powers to the DPP and the Commissioner of Police (CP).

The CP, through a combined reading of Section 71 of the Constitution and the Police Act, holds the full power to investigate an offence. Section 72 of the Constitution, conversely, empowers the DPP to institute criminal proceedings.

The DPP cannot exercise that power if an investigation is faulty and if all relevant avenues have not been thoroughly explored.

* In the context of the DPP taking effective control of the investigation, we would assume that the investigating team — under a new Commissioner of Police — would strive to get to the bottom of the different cases and question the high-ranking police officers of the SST and whoever in and outside the police force directed them to carry out these operations?

Once the Commissioner of Police (CP) receives the police file from the DPP for a further inquiry, he would and should comply. This compliance is paramount in the interest of justice and in the public interest.
The investigating team is legally and procedurally bound to follow the evidence wherever it leads. This means the scope cannot be limited only to high-ranking police officers; it must explicitly include all individuals who may have directed, authorized, or influenced the SST operations, even if they are outside the police force.
The credibility of the entire investigation hinges on its willingness to probe the chain of command, from the on-the-ground operatives all the way up to any external political or administrative figures who may have instigated these activities.

* There is one commonality as regards the accused parties: most of them publicly opposed the former government, and it’s quite possible that the alleged planting operations, if they actually took place, were meant to silence them. But proving that the drugs and evidence were indeed planted by the SST might prove extremely difficult. What kind of evidence would satisfy a court of law?

Proving that drugs or evidence were planted is extremely difficult, as it requires the police inquiry to probe the matter very deeply and searchingly to uncover a specific, malicious intent and a coordinated act by police officers to subvert justice.
If the inquiry reveals evidence of planting, the DPP will take appropriate action against the police officers. Should he order a prosecution, he must ensure the evidence is capable of satisfying a trial court beyond reasonable doubt of the officers’ guilt.
In essence, the evidence must establish a clear pattern of motive and opportunity, coupled with scientific proof that the planted items did not belong to the accused and were handled only by the police.

* Given the multiple “planting” allegations against the SST, what concrete, systemic steps can the Commissioner of Police, collaborating with other authorities, take beyond the specific case files to address such misconduct, restore public trust, and ensure the police force upholds its constitutional duty to administer justice fairly?

It is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police (CP) to hold training sessions with police officers and advise them how to act and behave according to professional standards. The SST was, however, a special case — a police unit that was allegedly acting outside the boundaries of the Rule of Law. Its leadership reportedly dismissed criticisms that it brushed aside as a farce.

The Mauritius Police Force’s Code of Ethics establishes the bedrock of police conduct, demanding integrity, fairness, and accountability to foster public trust. It mandates that all members must:

* Act only within the law and due legal process.

* Uphold fundamental human rights and treat all individuals with respect.

* Act with fairness, integrity, and impartiality.

* Accept personal accountability for their acts and omissions, and actively oppose any malpractice.

* Are police officers acting accordingly?

While the majority of the Police likely upholds its ethical code, the reported misconduct of the SST demonstrates a critical breakdown of accountability where ethical standards were systematically ignored or subverted by those involved. The investigation is necessary to enforce the accountability required by the Code of Ethics.

* How does the prolonged need for “further investigations” by the DPP’s office — necessitated by “allegations of planting” — impact the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial within a reasonable time for the accused persons, given the severity of the bail and prohibition orders?

Police misconduct negatively impacts fair trials and bail applications by jeopardizing the integrity of evidence, influencing the fairness of pre-trial proceedings, and potentially leading to wrongful convictions or the unjust denial of liberty. Examples include evidence tampering, illegal searches, planting false evidence, or coercing confessions, all of which violate the presumption of innocence and can result in the exclusion of crucial evidence, a stay of proceedings, or an unfair bail decision.

* If the “further investigations” ultimately fail to either substantiate the charges or definitively rule out the allegations of planting, what are the competing public interest factors the DPP must balance in making the final decision to prosecute or to formally enter a nolle prosequi?

The DPP’s decision to prosecute rests on both a strong Evidential Test and the Public Interest Test. The evidence must be sufficient and admissible to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. This means the DPP must be satisfied that a court, properly directed, is likely to find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even if the evidential test is met, the DPP must consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. This involves weighing factors such as: the seriousness of the offence, the accused party’s degree of culpability, the prevalence of the crime and the need to maintain public confidence in key institutions.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 3 October 2025