Sovereignty vs. Safety: A Legal Inquiry into the Controversial Landing of the Malagasy Private Jet

Qs & As

By Lex

The arrival of a private jet carrying a prominent Malagasy businessman and Politically Exposed Person (PEP) amid a backdrop of political crisis and a de facto coup in Madagascar has thrust the Mauritian jurisdiction into a complex legal and ethical spotlight. The incident raises profound questions that intersect international aviation law, national anti-corruption mandates, and principles of asylum and extradition. Was the controversial landing clearance a matter of prioritizing aircraft safety under global protocols, or an improper breach of public duty driven by political influence? Lex seeks to dissect the multilayered consequences of the event, analysing the potential administrative and criminal liabilities for local officials, the legal basis for asset freezing by the Financial Crimes Commission (FCC), and the delicate balance between sovereign justice and humanitarian law in an era of regional instability.

 * Does the act of granting an irregular landing clearance to politically exposed persons amid a crisis, if done improperly, constitute a breach of public duty, or simply an unlawful act under Mauritian law?

A Politically Exposed Person (PEP) is an individual who is or has been entrusted with a prominent public function, either domestically, in a foreign country, or in an international organisation. Due to their position, they may be more vulnerable to bribery and corruption. So, if the passengers were PEPS, allowing them to land in an emergency would not be a criminal offence. But they should not have been allowed to leave the aircraft without a decision by the Government and more particularly the Minister responsible for internal security.

* What if it is found that political pressure or influence was exerted to bypass standard aviation or immigration protocols? What are the administrative or criminal consequences for the Mauritian officials who issued the clearance?

An investigation must be carried out to find out in what circumstances the plane was allowed to land. Until that is done, we cannot situate responsibility. Depending on the findings, officials could face administrative sanctions (disciplinary action, dismissal) for a breach of public duty or criminal charges (e.g., conspiracy, abuse of office) if corrupt influence or clear disregard for statutory procedures is proven.

* It is possible however that the Department of Civil Aviation acted correctly under international protocols by prioritizing the aircraft’s safety, which overrides national political clearances in an emergency, isn’t it?

Landing rules for commercial airlines in foreign airports are complex, but generally require obtaining a landing permit, which involves submitting a detailed application to the destination country’s civil aviation authority. Key requirements include providing aircraft information, crew details, and flight schedules. It would appear that the plane from Madagascar had not complied with these rules. Probably it was allowed to land for reason of safety or humanitarian ground, which would typically supersede routine permits.

* What specific articles of the Chicago Convention govern an aircraft’s right to land in a signatory state upon declaring a fuel emergency?

Fuel emergency is a critical situation requiring immediate action and is declared with the phrase “Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, Fuel”. The Chicago Convention provides the framework for international civil aviation, including establishing rules for emergency situations like fuel emergencies. The Convention sets the foundation for member states to develop regulations for safety and emergency procedures, which are detailed in ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) Annexes, like Annex 6, that require pilots to declare a fuel emergency when they will likely land with less than the planned final reserve fuel.

* Given the contradictory requests (medical emergency, tourism), does presenting false or conflicting justifications for a landing request, even if an emergency is also cited, constitute a separate criminal or regulatory offence?

It will be up to the authorities to determine whether false information was given to obtain landing permission. However, presenting false or conflicting justifications for a landing request can constitute a separate regulatory offence under national aviation laws, and may potentially lead to criminal charges depending on the jurisdiction and the intent to deceive, especially concerning a serious matter like a declared emergency.

* Could a subsequent finding that the fuel emergency was feigned or exaggerated lead to potential penalties against the pilot or aircraft owner?

A pilot giving false information to request permission to land can face severe legal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. The seriousness of aviation regulations is designed to ensure safety by requiring accurate flight plans and permissions for all landings. If a fuel emergency was feigned or exaggerated, both the pilot (for professional misconduct and potentially fraud) and the aircraft owner (for regulatory breaches) could face penalties.

* News reports suggest that Malagasy businessman Maminiaina Ravatomanga – one of the passengers on the private jet – has invested in properties in Mauritius through one of the government’s real estate schemes (PDS, RES, or IRS) and would hold a residency permit. What standard of proof does the FCC have to meet to freeze his assets, and how can the defence legally fight that decision?

Before a foreigner is allowed to invest in Mauritius, due diligence is carried out. Due diligence for foreign investors in Mauritius involves checking legal, financial, and operational aspects, including verifying the legal status of a property, ensuring compliance with the Non-Citizens (Property Restriction) Act or obtaining a Foreign Acquisition Permit, and confirming the developer’s track record and the property’s compliance with regulations. For company investments, due diligence includes analyzing financial statements, business details, and ensuring the company is compliant with all local laws and registrations. If due diligence was properly carried out, on what basis has the FCC frozen the assets of the individual? The FCC must meet a reasonable suspicion standard.

* If the alleged offence (alleged money laundering/corruption or embezzlement) took place entirely in Madagascar, does Mauritian law still have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the money laundering offence?

Mauritius exercises jurisdiction over money laundering that originates from or involves foreign countries through its robust legal framework, international cooperation, and a risk-based approach. Our law provides a framework for identifying high-risk foreign countries and requires financial institutions to conduct enhanced due diligence on transactions involving them. Mauritius also implements United Nations sanctions and cooperates with international bodies to combat money laundering globally. This is based on the principle of territoriality (where the money is laundered) and extraterritoriality.

* If the Malagasy judiciary has issued an international warrant, is the FCC’s action to freeze assets obligatory under international mutual legal assistance treaties or only discretionary?

The issue of an international warrant by the authorities in Madagascar has no legal effect as has been pointed out by the Attorney General Gavin Glover. While Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) treaties encourage cooperation, asset freezing is subject to the sovereign laws of Mauritius, ensuring due process and avoiding enforcement where there are political motivations or non-compliance with domestic legal standards.

* Given the backdrop of a political crisis and a de facto coup in Madagascar, is there a risk that any extradition request from the new Malagasy regime would be deemed a politically motivated prosecution, potentially violating the non-extradition for political offences principle in Mauritian law/international law?

Extradition of a political refugee from Mauritius is highly unlikely to succeed, as requests are not considered if the offence is deemed political. Mauritius also does not have a specific national asylum law, and while it treats refugee applications on a case-by-case humanitarian basis, it does not guarantee refugee status. Extradition requires a valid treaty, and the request will not be favourably considered if the offence is judged to be of a political nature, regardless of whether competing political parties exist.

* If Mr Ravatomanga has a valid Permanent Residency Permit, does this status offer him any additional protection from deportation or extradition compared to a regular visitor?

A residence permit in Mauritius can be revoked by the Minister for various reasons, including breaching permit conditions, providing false information, or for public interest. It can also be revoked for non-compliance with income requirements, as assessed in mid-term reviews. Even if the residence permit of Mr Ravatomanga is revoked, he will still be deemed to be a political refugee and is unlikely to be extradited, especially if there is no extradition treaty with Madagascar.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 24 October 2025