{"id":47236,"date":"2026-11-11T10:54:30","date_gmt":"2026-11-11T06:54:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/?p=47236"},"modified":"2026-11-11T10:54:30","modified_gmt":"2026-11-11T06:54:30","slug":"publishing-the-kistnen-inquiry-report-what-the-law-says","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/publishing-the-kistnen-inquiry-report-what-the-law-says\/","title":{"rendered":"Publishing the Kistnen Inquiry Report: What the Law Says"},"content":{"rendered":"

Qs & As<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2018Ultimately, the DPP must weigh the public\u2019s right to transparency against the need to safeguard further investigations\u2019<\/span><\/h3>\n

By Lex<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Paul B\u00e9renger\u2019s recent call for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to release the judicial inquiry report into the death of Soopramanien Kistnen has reignited a vital legal and public-interest debate. While critics argue that non-disclosure fuels suspicions of a cover-up — especially following allegations of evidence tampering — legal principles urge caution whenever criminal inquiries remain active. Below, Lex examines what Mauritian law actually says about publishing judicial inquiry findings, the limits of judicial review, and how the DPP balances public accountability against the integrity of future prosecutions.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

* Paul B\u00e9renger has publicly called on the incumbent Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), during a press conference, to make public the report of the judicial inquiry (JI) into the death of Soopramanien Kistnen, which occurred in mysterious circumstances. Given the high-profile nature of the latter\u2019s death, isn\u2019t there a strong argument for transparency and public accountability?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

From a strict legal standpoint, releasing the full contents of a judicial inquiry report while criminal investigations are still underway risks prejudicing future prosecutions, tainting unrevealed evidence, or tipping off suspects.<\/span><\/p>\n

While Paul B\u00e9renger warns that withholding the report fuels suspicions of a cover-up, legal authorities maintain that premature disclosure could jeopardize the integrity of the ongoing probe. Ultimately, the DPP must weigh the public\u2019s right to transparency against the need to safeguard further investigations.<\/span><\/p>\n

* However, in light of the findings of the (former) Scotland Yard investigators, which allegedly point to evidence having already been tampered with, can those concerns still justify withholding the JI report? Isn\u2019t there now a stronger case for making the report public in the interests of transparency, accountability and public confidence in the administration of justice?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Even if some evidence has allegedly been compromised or tampered with, legal authorities argue that publishing the full report could completely derail what remains of the investigation. Making the report public could also expose vulnerable witnesses to intense public scrutiny, media pressure, or direct intimidation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, in many jurisdictions, the DPP is obligated to ensure that any future trial is fair; pre-trial publicity stemming from an official report can taint a jury pool, rendering a fair trial impossible and potentially causing the eventual prosecution to collapse.<\/span><\/p>\n

* We understand that one of the primary purposes of a judicial inquiry report is to assist the DPP in determining whether criminal proceedings should be instituted or whether further police investigations are warranted. It is not known whether the police were instructed to pursue further inquiries following the submission of the report or, if so, whether those investigations have since been completed. In these circumstances, could making the JI report public prejudice any subsequent criminal proceedings or the right to a fair trial?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Following the magistrate\u2019s conclusions, the Kistnen case was formally referred to the police so that the findings could be thoroughly examined and acted upon. Whether the authorities conducted a rigorous and impartial inquiry remains an open question, and without access to the full facts, we cannot speculate on what transpired behind closed doors.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now that the case has been entrusted to independent British investigators, the most prudent course is to let them carry out their work without interference and wait to see what their findings reveal.<\/span><\/p>\n

* Considering that a Judicial Inquiry is initiated at the request of the DPP, under what specific circumstances and conditions may the DPP exercise their discretion to voluntarily release its findings, particularly given the constitutional guarantee that the DPP acts independently and free from external or political direction?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Under Mauritian law, the findings of a judicial inquiry forwarded by a Magistrate to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) are privileged and do not automatically become public documents. However, because the DPP acts as the sole custodian of the public interest in criminal matters under Section 72 of the Constitution, he retains the discretionary power to disclose or release those findings.<\/span><\/p>\n

* We understand that the DPP may release a judicial inquiry report when doing so would no longer prejudice an investigation or trial, or where public interest or safety justifies disclosure, as in the Port Louis flash floods inquiry. Can the DPP also grant access to the report or inquiry proceedings to victims\u2019 families, insurers or their legal representatives for specific civil or legal purposes?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The release of a judicial inquiry report remains at the discretion of the DPP, whose office balances the need for transparency and assistance to affected parties against the risk of prejudicing any underlying or parallel criminal investigations. As a matter of practice, victims of road accidents, families, or insurance companies are generally permitted to obtain the proceedings of a judicial inquiry upon formal request.<\/span><\/p>\n

* Following the landmark Privy Council decision in Mohit v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, the DPP\u2019s decisions and exercises of discretion may, in exceptional circumstances, be subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court. Does this mean that an aggrieved party, such as a deceased\u2019s spouse (e.g., the widow or family of Soopramanien Kistnen), has sufficient locus standi to apply to the Supreme Court for an order reviewing the DPP\u2019s decision or compelling the release of a judicial inquiry report?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

An aggrieved party, such as the widow or immediate family of a deceased person, generally possesses sufficient locus standi<\/em> (legal standing) to apply for judicial review. However, having standing to bring a claim is one thing; securing success on the merits is quite another. A court is very unlikely to compel the DPP to release a judicial inquiry report unless it can be shown that he is acting in bad faith or for some ulterior motive, as established in the Mohit case.<\/span><\/p>\n

* Could the DPP release a redacted version of the report — omitting sensitive leads or witness testimonies — to balance public interest with police investigations?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The DPP possesses the legal discretion to release a redacted version of a judicial inquiry report, balancing the public interest against the integrity of ongoing police investigations.<\/span><\/p>\n

Under Section 72 of the Constitution of Mauritius, the DPP operates with complete independence and holds the sole authority to determine the timing and scope of any disclosure.<\/span><\/p>\n

Indeed, the DPP has previously affirmed that it is for his office alone to weigh the public interest when deciding whether to release sensitive findings. Past precedents — such as the disclosure of findings in high-profile judicial inquiries, including the Port Louis flash floods — demonstrate that the DPP can and does make information public once immediate investigative risks have been mitigated.<\/span><\/p>\n

* What is the strict time limit for lodging an application for Leave for Judicial Review against the DPP’s decision or failure to decide?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Under the Courts (Amendment) Act 2025 (effective January 5, 2026), the statutory time limit for lodging an application for leave to apply for judicial review before the Supreme Court of Mauritius is 45 days from the date of the impugned decision.<\/span><\/p>\n

* What formal administrative procedures exist to submit an official request\/petition directly to the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting disclosure?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

An individual or a legal representative may submit a formal letter or petition to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions or transmit the request electronically. The letter or petition must clearly identify the parties involved, the relevant court reference numbers, and any corresponding police station Diary Book entries.<\/span><\/p>\n

Additionally, the requesting party must itemize the exact prosecution materials, records, or unused evidence sought. It is also advisable to cite the relevant statutory framework, constitutional right to a fair trial, or applicable legal guidelines justifying the disclosure request.<\/span><\/p>\n

* To ensure justice and fairness, the law must be applied consistently. Judicial decisions should treat all litigants equally, regardless of political, communal, or social background, particularly in a multiracial society. How well have we performed in maintaining this standard?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

As a multicultural nation, Mauritius has a Constitution that explicitly guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, community, or political affiliation. The separation of powers ensures that the judiciary operates independently of the executive and legislative branches, shielding judges from political pressure and allowing them to rule strictly on the merits of each case.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, a structured hierarchy of courts — enabling litigants to appeal decisions to higher tribunals — serves as a critical safeguard against potential bias, ensuring that errors or inconsistencies can be corrected by appellate panels or the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/p>\n

By and large, the country has managed this system remarkably well, despite occasional criticism.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 6 November 2026<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Qs & As<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":198,"featured_media":47237,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[5268,6],"tags":[32072,63577,238,63582,789,29088,63578,42627,29754,6060,18568,28646,36,63580,49,3345,2359,63581,28332,2026,967,63579],"class_list":["post-47236","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-justice","category-latest-news","tag-constitutional-independence","tag-criminal-investigations","tag-director-of-public-prosecutions","tag-disclosure-of-reports","tag-dpp","tag-equality-before-the-law","tag-evidence-tampering","tag-fair-trial","tag-judicial-inquiry","tag-judicial-review","tag-lex","tag-locus-standi","tag-mauritius-times","tag-mohit-case","tag-paul-berenger","tag-public-accountability","tag-public-interest","tag-section-72","tag-soopramanien-kistnen","tag-supreme-court","tag-transparency","tag-witness-tampering"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8QzSF-chS","jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Judicial.jpg?fit=1200%2C846&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47236","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/198"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47236"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47236\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":47257,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47236\/revisions\/47257"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/47237"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}