The Clinic Defence: Are Medical Certificates Delaying Justice in Mauritius?

Qs & As

By Lex

In recent years, Mauritius has witnessed a surge in high-profile suspects seeking refuge in private clinics minutes after arrest — often armed with medical certificates recommending rest, treatment, or indefinite postponement of questioning. While some cases may reflect genuine health concerns, others raise suspicion of strategic delays and unequal treatment under the law. This Q&A explores how the system handles claims of illness, the legal limits of “fitness to be interviewed,” the role of private doctors, and whether the current framework inadvertently favours wealthy suspects over ordinary citizens.

*There is a perception that high-profile suspects in Mauritius — particularly those with significant financial means — frequently invoke ill-health to delay or avoid interrogations (often by the Financial Crimes Commission – FCC or the police). Is it probable that the legal principle requiring a suspect to be “fit to be interviewed” is being abused?

There may indeed be genuine cases where a suspect suffers from a legitimate medical condition. However, there are also instances where suspects may feign illness to avoid detention in a police cell or prison. When confronted with an alleged illness, the authorities must, at the earliest opportunity, have the suspect examined by both a government doctor and, if the suspect wishes, a doctor of their own choosing.

FCC — PRISON – CLINIQUE -CACHOT. Pic – Facebook

* Does the Mauritian legal system require the investigating body (FCC or CCID) to prioritise a suspect’s health whenever the suspect claims or appears to be ill, and to halt the interrogation until a medical assessment is completed?

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court held that deliberate indifference to an incarcerated person’s serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. A similar principle applies in Mauritius, where the Constitution prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

Arrestees who are unwell retain their fundamental human right to humane treatment and adequate medical care. International standards and many national laws require authorities to safeguard the health and well-being of detainees, providing necessary medical assistance free of charge.

* Does “fit to be interviewed” mean that a suspect’s physical and mental condition must be stable enough to allow them to understand complex questions and make rational decisions about speaking or remaining silent?

Yes. “Fit to be interviewed” means that a suspect’s physical and mental condition must be sufficiently stable for them to understand the interview process, appreciate the significance of their answers, and make an informed and rational decision about whether to speak or remain silent.

* If the FCC or police proceed with an interrogation while a suspect is genuinely unfit, would any statements obtained subsequently be ruled inadmissible in court?

Yes. In many jurisdictions, statements or confessions obtained from a suspect who is genuinely unfit for interrogation are likely to be ruled inadmissible. The primary grounds are that the statement was not voluntary or that its reliability was compromised, resulting in an unfair trial. The same principle would apply in Mauritius.

* High-profile suspects often have the financial means to secure immediate admission to private clinics or consultations with private specialists who issue medical certificates, sometimes recommending extended rest or treatment. Do such reports carry significant weight and become difficult for the prosecution to challenge?

Doctors examining a suspect — whether a government doctor or a private practitioner — must act professionally and in accordance with medical ethics and the Hippocratic Oath. A doctor cannot lawfully issue a false or misleading report to suit a suspect’s needs; the examination must be rigorous.

In one notable case involving a Malagasy suspect, the doctor who examined him was unable to explain parts of his own report in court and appeared confused. The Magistrate reprimanded him strongly as a result.

* As seen in the Ravatomanga example, the authorities often spend days obtaining an order for a counter-expertise (a second, independent medical opinion) to verify a suspect’s fitness. When a suspect’s own doctor certifies them as unfit, how does the law resolve a conflict between the defence doctor’s report and the prosecution’s counter-expertise?

When courts are confronted with conflicting medical reports, the issue is resolved by assessing the credibility, qualifications, and reasoning of the expert witnesses. This is usually done through cross-examination. Ultimately, the judge (or jury) as the trier of fact decides which medical evidence is more persuasive.

* What legal action can the FCC take if a suspect’s treating physician is believed to be issuing a fraudulent or unduly favourable medical certificate?

The Financial Crimes Commission can investigate suspected fraudulent medical certificates, as such conduct may constitute offences such as fraud or forgery. If evidence of wrongdoing is uncovered, the matter may be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for criminal prosecution.

The FCC may also collaborate with the Medical Council, which has the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct, dishonesty, or ethical breaches by the physician.

* Less affluent suspects arrested for similar offences rarely have the resources to secure admission to private clinics or to retain specialist doctors and high-profile lawyers. Would it amount to a violation of the constitutional right to equality and a fair trial if the system effectively allows wealthy suspects to delay interrogation indefinitely through private medical reports, while less affluent suspects must rely solely on police-controlled resources?

Wealthy suspects cannot indefinitely delay interrogation through private medical reports, as legal safeguards exist to ensure the fair and timely administration of justice. Although disparities in access to resources are a reality, the legal framework aims to balance a suspect’s health needs with investigative requirements, applying the same basic rights to all individuals regardless of financial status.

* To ensure fairness, what specific and immediate measures (such as a state-funded pool of independent doctors) could be implemented to provide less affluent suspects with the same standard of independent medical review available to wealthy suspects?

That could indeed be a viable solution. The Government has already signalled its intention to amend the law to curb abuses relating to medical excuses for avoiding detention. One practical measure would be the appointment of a state-funded pool of independent doctors to provide impartial assessments for all suspects.

* It is not only suspects in money-laundering cases who are admitted to clinics; there is also a perception that some high-profile individuals delay or avoid blood-alcohol testing following a vehicle accident. Would designating specific, secure hospital wards where suspects remain in police custody be a legally feasible solution that allows authorities to maintain control and facilitate prompt medical and legal assessments?

Designating specific, secure hospital wards for suspects in police custody is legally complex but feasible, provided that strong legal frameworks, clear operational protocols, and robust human-rights safeguards are in place. Where a detainee has been arrested and requires hospitalisation, a police officer or designated escort should normally remain with them (unless bail is granted) to ensure that they do not escape and that medical and investigative procedures can be carried out promptly.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 5 December 2025