‘The arrests of Jugnauth, Gobin, and Padayachy appear justified based on the disclosed facts’

Qs & As

Due Process and Accountability in Mauritius’ Arrests

‘Why didn’t Seegoolam and Bissessur report Minister Padayachy while he was still in office? Were they concerned about their job security?’

By Lex

The arrest of former Finance Minister Renganaden Padayachy over the “Apavou Deal” and the earlier arrest of former Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth have brought the legal processes surrounding allegations and arrests in Mauritius into sharp focus. In this analysis, Lex probes the fundamental questions these cases raise: What constitutes sufficient grounds for arrest? How is the presumption of innocence upheld in the face of public perception? And crucially, are Mauritius’ legal mechanisms robust enough to ensure due process and prevent politically motivated actions?

* The Financial Crime Commission’s (FCC) arrest of former Finance Minister Renganaden Padayachy regarding the “Apavou Deal” rests on allegations of undue influence over the Mauritius Investment Corporation’s (MIC) financial support decisions. Is the FCC’s action justified based solely on allegations, or does it require substantial prima facie evidence to warrant arrest and detention?

Many criminal cases often originate from allegations. The rule is to verify the genuineness and credibility of these allegations. One assumes the FCC followed this procedure before arresting the former Minister of Finance.

*  The arrest of former Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth, stemming from Josian Deelawon’s allegations regarding Rs 114 million in suitcases, raises similar concerns to the Padayachy case. Assuming the Jugnauth arrest was solely predicated on Deelawon’s claims, what legal principles, such as due process, the presumption of innocence, and the requirement for sufficient evidence, might have been disregarded or violated?

Every citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty. An arrest based on reasonable suspicion of an offence does not equate to guilt. It signifies that the police or FCC investigators have sufficient grounds to proceed with an arrest for further investigation.

However, in Mauritius, there’s a prevailing perception that the arrest of a high-profile individual implies guilt. Consider the treatment of Navin Ramgoolam in February 2015, when he was forcibly removed from his home by police officer Heman Jangi and others and transported in a police van. In stark contrast, the treatment of Pravind Jugnauth was entirely civilized.

* Doesn’t the pattern of arrests targeting political opponents during the MSM’s last two terms, frequently appearing to rely solely on unproven accusations without substantial supporting evidence, underscore the urgent need for effective mechanisms to guarantee due process and prevent politically motivated arrests, making a strong legal framework, an independent judiciary, and robust oversight essential components of such a system?

If an arrest is unlawful and unjustified, the arrestee can seek damages from the State. An arrest of a politician does not automatically constitute political targeting.

The arrests of Pravind Jugnauth, Maneesh Gobin, and Renganaden Padayachy appear justified based on the disclosed facts. However, it is the court’s role to determine the credibility of those facts.

* Transparency is lacking regarding the legal standing and credibility of those who made allegations leading to the arrests of politically exposed individuals during the MSM’s regime. It’s also unknown what investigations, if any, were conducted to substantiate these claims. If these arrests are ultimately shown to be based purely on unsubstantiated allegations, what legal remedies exist for the affected individuals?

If the individuals concerned feel aggrieved, they can file a case to claim damages.

Further the Criminal Code provides that “where a public functionary, an agent of, or person appointed by the Government, orders or commits any arbitrary act, prejudicial either to individual liberty, or to the civic rights of one or more individuals, or to the Constitution of Mauritius, and does not prove that he acted by order of his superior, in matters within the competency of the latter, he shall be condemned to imprisonment or to a fine not exceeding 3,000 rupees.”

* Conversely, would an individual knowingly making false accusations under oath to the FCC be exposed to perjury charges and severe consequences, including imprisonment and fines?

Yes. Anyone who makes a false allegation can be prosecuted for the offence of false and malicious denunciation in writing. If they provide false testimony under oath in court, it constitutes perjury.

* Does an unlawful arrest, stemming from unsubstantiated allegations or inadequate investigation, necessarily lead to the dismissal of a case against politically exposed individuals (e.g., former Prime Minister or Finance Minister), allowing them to avoid conviction despite public demand for accountability?

Well, if the allegations are unsubstantiated, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) will not advise prosecution, and the case will be closed or shelved. It will then be up to the aggrieved individual to seek any legal remedy.

* What about Pravind Jugnauth’s denial of Seegolam’s claims relating to the former Finance minister’s interference and pressure and Renganaden Padayachy’s denial of any wrongdoing? Do these denials carry weight in the legal process, or will the court will ultimately assess the credibility of these denials in light of the evidence presented?

The task of the investigators is to explore all relevant avenues. When the file is submitted to the DPP, it will be up to him to assess the weight of the evidence and take whatever decision he deems fit.

Ultimately, the court will evaluate the strength of the evidence if the case proceeds.

* On the other hand, the scrutiny of Verde Frontier Solutions Ltd and the transactions involving Mercantile & Maritime Group (MMG) and Kuros Construction Solutions Ltd are based on suspicions of financial impropriety. What is the significance of these allegations, and what lessons can be learned from this situation regarding financial transparency and the politicians-corporate nexus?

Ultimately, it boils down to good governance and integrity. Regardless of the laws in place, if an individual – be it a minister or a public functionary – chooses to act corruptly, the primary solution is to report them. However, the question remains: will a civil servant ever denounce a minister, or will they become complicit if they are benefiting from corrupt practices?

In the case of Padayachy, why didn’t Seegoolam and Bissessur report the minister while he was still in office? Were they concerned about their job security and opted to continue benefiting from their roles?

* Harvesh Seegolam has reportedly decided to “reveal everything” to the FCC? Does such cooperation by an accused party with the police and investigative authorities, in addition to any potential benefit to themselves, mitigate the seriousness of the charges in the eyes of the court?

It appears they are attempting to minimize their involvement in these transactions.

However, Seegoolam and Bissessur, along with Padayachy, could face prosecution for conspiracy to defraud public funds if the evidence supports such charges.

* At the end of the day, it’s the DPP who will determine the sufficiency and admissibility of the evidence and allegations before the matter proceeds to court. One could therefore expect a decision either way – to prosecute any of the suspects in the various deals that are today making the headlines, or to decline to press charges due to insufficient or inadmissible evidence. Right?

The ultimate decision rests with the DPP. However, deciding to prosecute is one thing; conducting the case in court with all its complexities and ramifications will be the real test.

It is certainly important that lawyers within the DPP’s office possess the specialized expertise needed for these types of cases. Similarly, it would be beneficial if our magistrates or judges have the requisite financial expertise to address financial crimes.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 18 April 2025