When Due Process Collapses

Lessons from the Police v. Navinchandra Ramgoolam Judgment

Qs & As 

By Lex

The recent ruling by the Financial Crimes Division of the Intermediate Court to stay proceedings in the case of Police v. Navinchandra Ramgoolam has ignited a crucial national debate regarding the integrity of our criminal justice system. By ordering a termination of the prosecution, the Court has shifted the focus from the alleged regulatory breach to the conduct of the investigating authorities, raising fundamental questions about the limits of state power, the nature of “provisional charges,” and the judiciary’s role as a guardian of procedural fairness. In the following Q&A, we examine the legal complexities of this decision, the implications for future prosecutions, and why the Court concluded that the integrity of the process had been irreversibly compromised.

* In the matter of the case ‘Police v Navinchandra Ramgoolam’, the Financial Crimes Division of the Intermediate Court ruled in favour of the defense and ordered a stay of proceedings, terminating the prosecution of Dr N. Ramgoolam. What is your overall opinion of the ruling?

The Financial Crimes Division’s ruling to order a stay of proceedings and terminate the prosecution of Dr Navin Ramgoolam is a decision with high consequences. The court based its reasoning mainly on abuse of process in that there were flaws in the police investigation and possibly political interference.

* We understand that in such matters the Court must weigh two competing public interests: the public interest in ensuring that individuals charged with serious crimes are tried, and the public interest in maintaining public confidence in the law by refusing to condone executive or police misconduct. Are you of the view that the proper balancing test was applied in this case?

The application of the test is highly subjective, and legal experts often disagree on its proper implementation. Proponents of a strict approach argue that admitting tainted evidence condones misconduct and thereby erodes the rule of law. Conversely, those who favour the prosecution contend that excluding reliable evidence because of procedural missteps allows dangerous offenders to escape justice, thereby undermining public safety. Whether a court has applied the proper balancing test depends largely on the specific facts of the case and the jurisdiction concerned, as there is no single, universally accepted weighting of these competing interests.

* The defence used the ‘Dufry Affidavit’ (sworn in 2015 by Simo Carevic and Thomas Galet) to allege a political vendetta, claiming three sitting ministers — including the Attorney General — threatened Dufry executives at a midnight meeting to manufacture bribery evidence against Navin Ramgoolam. While the Court ruled the affidavit’s contents inadmissible as absolute truth because the authors were absent, it recognized the formal swearing of the document as a legal fact — the more so given that the then PM confirmed in Parliament that the meeting did take place.  Does this mean that sworn affidavits have a distinct legal standing — even when the persons who signed it are not present for cross-examination by the prosecution?

The Court quoted the following passage from a case:

“The admission as evidence of statements of absent witnesses results in a potential disadvantage for the defendant, who, in principle, in a criminal trial should have an effective opportunity to challenge the evidence against him. In particular, he should be able to test the truthfulness and reliability of the evidence given by the witnesses by having them orally examined in his presence, either at the time the witness was making the statement or at some later stage of the proceedings.”

Under the Courts Act, in any criminal proceedings, a statement made out of court shall be admissible as evidence, with the leave of the Court, of any matter stated therein where oral evidence given in the proceedings by the person who made the statement would be admissible as evidence of that matter, provided that the person who made the statement is identified to the satisfaction of the Court and:
– is outside Mauritius and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance; or
– cannot be found, although such steps as are reasonably practicable to find him have been undertaken.

* One could argue that the ‘Dufry Affidavit’ is not directly relevant to the specifics of the alleged financial offence. Yet, the Financial Crimes Division (FCD) did admit it. Is it correct to conclude that the court accepted the affidavit not to validate the truth of its contents, but rather to establish the procedural history and the context surrounding the origins of the prosecution?

This is correct. In the context of the proceedings against Dr Navin Ramgoolam, the FCD accepted the “Dufry Affidavit” not to establish the factual truth of the specific allegations it contained, but to place the origins of the prosecution in context and assess the overall fairness of the police investigation.

Because the affidavit’s foreign signatories were unavailable to testify and be subjected to cross-examination, the Court could not accept its substantive allegations as established facts. In relation to the issue of abuse of process, however, the affidavit was admitted to establish the procedural history of the case, specifically the defence’s claims that the investigation had been politically motivated.

The Court used the affidavit to emphasise that, when such serious allegations of political interference are raised, investigators have a duty to explore all relevant avenues of inquiry. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the police’s failure to adequately investigate these surrounding circumstances contributed to an unfair trial and amounted to an abuse of process.

* Furthermore, the Magistrates highlighted a systematic bias in how the authorities acted: immediately following the 2015 raid, the CCID — led by ACP H. Jangi — slapped the accused with no less than 11 provisional charges ranging from bribery and conspiracy to forgery. This ‘cascade of arrests’ led the Court to conclude that it was an overt attempt to ‘get the man at all costs and by all means.’ Does this judicial indictment of a ‘cascade of arrests’ indicate that our courts are increasingly ready to examine whether police procedures, including provisional charges, are being or could be weaponised for political ends?

The scathing indictment of the “cascade of arrests” and the delays associated with provisional charges suggest that the Mauritian judiciary is increasingly willing to subject law enforcement procedures to close scrutiny.
While the magistrates stopped short of finding evidence of a direct political conspiracy, they issued stern warnings against systemic abuses of process. The defence successfully argued that the relentless succession of charges, including multiple provisional accusations, amounted to a “witch hunt” designed to inflict political damage on the politician and undermine his standing.

* By permanently staying the trial, the court sent an unambiguous signal: the state cannot use politically tainted means to secure a conviction. Does this ruling make the case for an urgent, structural overhauling of our provisional charge system to prevent such abuses in the future?

Magistrates Bibi Razia Jannoo-Jaunbocus and Abdool Raheem Tajoodeen ruled that the police force’s failure to adequately investigate the origin of the funds, together with the defence’s claims of political bias, amounted to a serious abuse of process.

The Court found that investigative shortcomings — particularly the refusal to probe critical aspects raised by the defence and allegations of a political vendetta — rendered a fair trial impossible. The Ramgoolam case, along with others, has been cited as calling for an urgent review of the provisional charges system.

* Yet, despite Navin Ramgoolam explicitly detailing political interference in his 2015 and 2017 police statements, the CCID completely ignored those statements to focus solely on the seized cash. Can a trial ever be deemed fair when law enforcement chooses to look only at the incriminating evidence while remaining willfully blind to the political context surrounding the case?

A one-sided investigation that focuses exclusively on physical evidence (such as large sums of cash) while ignoring the context in which that evidence was acquired, who provided it, or the political motives of the accusers deprives the defence of potentially exculpatory material.

When the police act with wilful blindness to allegations of political vendettas, investigations risk becoming “fishing expeditions” or instruments of political retaliation, thereby undermining fundamental rights to a fair and impartial trial.

* The Court found that the seriousness of breaching the legal limit on cash payments (i.e., payments above Rs 500,000) did not outweigh the police misconduct. In reaching this view, it pointed to a change in legislative policy over time. It observed that the maximum prison sentence for the offence rose from 10 years in 2015 to 20 years in 2019, before being reduced again to 10 years under the Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023, although the maximum fine was significantly increased to Rs 20 million. What, in your view, could have driven this apparent shift in legislative policy?

The adjustment in sentencing and fines reflects a legislative shift from punitive incapacitation toward economic deterrence, influenced in part by international anti-money laundering (AML) standards. This evolution in Mauritius’ policy framework appears to be driven by several motivations.

The 2015–2019 increase to 20 years’ imprisonment signalled a strongly punitive approach. However, the Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023 recalibrated this position. By reducing the maximum custodial sentence while significantly increasing the maximum fine to Rs 20 million, the legislature moved toward financial incapacitation.

This approach targets the financial capacity of offenders, recognising that substantial monetary penalties may, in some cases, operate as a more effective deterrent to financial crime than prolonged imprisonment.

* Given that the charge involved a technical cash-payment violation under the law, requiring only proof that the statutory cash limit was exceeded and not that the funds originated from criminal activity, was the Court justified in treating the offence as insufficiently serious to outweigh the damage to public confidence caused by the police misconduct?

The Court’s decision to issue a stay of proceedings in the Navin Ramgoolam’s case was not based on the premise that the statutory cash violation is inherently trivial, but rather on the fundamental principle that the integrity of the judicial process had been irreversibly compromised by the conduct of the police.

The Court’s ruling did not acquit Ramgoolam of the technical FIAMLA charge or determine that the cash limit was unimportant. Instead, the defence’s motion was an application based on abuse of process. This required the Court to evaluate not the guilt of the accused, but whether it would be fair, equitable, and consistent with the rule of law to allow the prosecution to proceed in light of serious investigative failures by the police.

* In light of this ruling, can it be said that a mere breach of the limitation on cash payments (exceeding Rs 500,000) is regarded as less serious than offences involving actual money laundering, since the former does not require proof that the funds originated from criminal activity?

Legally speaking, a breach of the cash payment limitation (Section 5 of the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act) is treated as a distinct and less serious regulatory offence compared to money laundering proper, primarily because it does not require the prosecution to prove that the funds originated from criminal activity.

Courts in Mauritius, including in the case of Dr Navin Ramgoolam, have highlighted several key distinctions between the two offences:

The offence of money laundering requires the prosecution to establish that the property or funds were derived from an underlying criminal or unlawful activity. In contrast, the cash limitation offence is a strict regulatory breach. It is committed simply by making or accepting a cash transaction exceeding the statutory threshold (set at Rs 500,000). The source or origin of the cash is irrelevant to the essential elements of this charge.

While the prosecution may seek forfeiture or unexplained wealth orders if it suspects illicit origins, a conviction for the cash limitation offence itself requires only proof that the cash was physically paid or received above the prescribed limit. However, the law provides specific statutory exemptions (for example, transactions between an established customer and a financial institution), where the burden may fall on the accused to show that the transaction is consistent with lawful activity.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 12 June 2026