Weaponized Policing: The Need for Immediate Reform

Editorial

This week, the Mauritian courts delivered two landmark judgments that reverberate far beyond the confines of the courtroom. In Bheenick R v The State of Mauritius & Ors (2026 SCJ 237) and Police v Navinchandra Ramgoolam (2026 INT 141), the judiciary has issued a stern, unequivocal rebuke of police conduct. More importantly, these rulings expose a systematic pattern where the machinery of the state — meant to serve and protect — was weaponised by the previous MSM government to target its political adversaries.

For years, observers and civil society have warned of the erosion of institutional independence in Mauritius. The findings in these two cases provide the judicial confirmation of those concerns. In the Bheenick case, the Supreme Court identified “fautes lourdes” (gross negligence) in the police’s actions, citing a total absence of a factual foundation for arrest and detention. The Court highlighted that the police relied on a “mere hunch” rather than objective evidence, a practice that not only violates the rights of the individual but undermines the very concept of the rule of law. Perhaps most damning was the evidence regarding the alteration of an initial declaration to manufacture a narrative of criminal activity.

The Ramgoolam ruling, handed down by the Financial Crimes Division of the Intermediate Court, provides a mirror image of these systemic failures. By ordering a stay of proceedings on the grounds of “abuse of process,” the Court has drawn a red line against the “second limb” of abuse — executive overreach. The Court found “sufficiently disturbing facts” on the record, including a deluge of provisional charges that collapsed under judicial scrutiny and a wilful “non-enquiry” into documented political interference, such as the infamous “midnight meeting” with Duty Free executives.

These cases highlight three recurring, deeply problematic features of recent Mauritian governance: the weaponisation of criminal procedure, the use of publicity as a form of punishment, and a systemic failure where the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is ultimately forced to discontinue cases for lack of evidence. In both instances, the arrests occurred first, and the search for evidence followed — a classic “fishing expedition” that turns the presumption of innocence on its head.

The Path to Reform: A Bifurcated Strategy

We now find ourselves in a unique moment in our political history. The current Labour Party-led government, led by a Prime Minister who was himself the subject of these targeted investigations, now holds the mandate to rectify these systemic abuses. The government’s proposal to reform the Constitution, which includes the “enhanced protection of fundamental rights,” is a commendable initiative. However, it is essential to distinguish between the “macro” and “micro” tracks of this reform agenda.

The Constitutional Review Commission (CRC), established by the 2026 Bill, addresses the high-level architecture of our democracy. It aims to modernize the 1968 Constitution to include new-generation rights and to reinforce privacy protections against state surveillance. The Constitutional Review Commission (CRC), established by the 2026 Bill, addresses the high-level architecture of our democracy. It aims to modernize the 1968 Constitution to include new-generation rights and to reinforce privacy protections against state surveillance. While this is critical for the long-term health of our republic, it should not be viewed as the immediate cure for the procedural rot which infected the police force during the mandate of the previous regime.

For the essential, detailed reform of our criminal procedural framework, the answer lies in the long-awaited Police and Criminal Justice Act (the Mauritian equivalent of the UK’s PACE Act). This is the “low-hanging fruit” that we have identified previously in these columns. Reforming the provisional charge system — which allows for prolonged pre-trial detention without formal charges — is a legislative priority that can no longer be delayed. The current system lacks a robust statutory framework, creating a vacuum that has allowed for arbitrary detention, lack of judicial oversight, and procedural chaos.

The PACE-style legislation is necessary to bring Mauritius into alignment with international human rights standards. It would codify rules regarding arrest, search, seizure, and the treatment of detainees, effectively stripping away the informal powers that have allowed for the “cascade of arrests” witnessed in recent years. By providing clear, objective criteria for when an investigation can proceed to an arrest, the legislature can finally remove the discretion that has been abused by politically motivated investigators.

Justice must be seen to be done

Justice, as the old adage goes, must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. The current judicial climate — where the courts are forced to terminate cases because the executive has tainted the process — is a sign of a system in distress. While the courts are doing their part to uphold the purity of the justice system by refusing to act as a “rubber stamp” for executive overreach, they cannot perform this duty indefinitely if the legislative framework remains inadequate.

Crime, when proved, must be punished. No one, regardless of political stature, is above the law. However, the state’s power to punish is a dangerous tool. When that tool is seized by those in power to settle personal or political scores, it ceases to be a mechanism of justice and becomes a weapon of oppression. The Bheenick and Ramgoolam judgments have served as a wake-up call to the police force: the days of operating on “wishes” and “hunches” must come to an end.

The legislative focus must now shift to the Police and Criminal Justice Act. This bill has remained in a state of flux for over a decade. It has been called for by the Bar Council, international human rights bodies, and the DPP’s office for years. There is no longer a justification for its continued deferral. The government must treat this as an urgent, non-negotiable imperative.

The Constitutional Review Commission provides the vision, but the Police and Criminal Justice Act provides the structural integrity required to defend the rights of all citizens. Together, these two tracks represent the best opportunity for Mauritius to close the chapter on the era of weaponised state power. We must ensure that the institutional memory of these recent judicial rebukes remains at the forefront of the legislative process.

The time for half-measures has passed. The judiciary has done its job; it is now up to the legislature to ensure that the rule of law in Mauritius is not just a constitutional guarantee, but a lived reality for every citizen. We must build a system where the police serve the law, not the whims of the powerful, and where justice is a shield for the innocent, not a sword for the vengeful. The roadmap is clear — now is the time for action.

It is not enough to simply change the faces in power; we must change the rules of the game so that the abuse of the past cannot be repeated by those in power today, or by any future government.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 12 June 2026