Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2. I am a public officer, appointed since 03 February 2009 by the Judicial and Legal
Service Commission to act as the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of the Republic
of Mauritius.
3. Under section 72(3) of the Constitution, the DPP has the power, in any case in
which he considers it desirable to do so, to:
(a)
(b)
(c)
9. I was abroad on mission from 29 June 2015 to 08 July 2015. I was apprised
both abroad and upon my return to Mauritius by articles which recently
appeared in the press that the Respondents are intending to proceed to arrest
me in connection with an alleged case of conflict of interest reported by the
Co-Respondent No. 2 pursuant to section 13 of the POCA.
Page 1 of 11
10. I aver that the above articles purport to ventilate/publish information obtained
from sources close to Respondents and Co-Respondent, and contain
unfounded and grossly misleading statements and baseless allegations.
11. (A Minister mentioned) made a series of threatening statements directed
against members of the judiciary as allegedly being involved in state land
frauds in press articles including:
i.
ii.
iii.
12. I aver that in the light of the events that unfolded and transpired thereafter, it
is clear that (A Minister mentioned) was referring to my person.
13. On 09 July 2015, my office issued a Communiqu wherein I stated that I
rejected the allegations, as reported in the media.
14. By virtue of a Communiqu dated 09 July 2015, Respondent No. 1 revealed
that it had received a referral on 06 July 2015 from the Co-Respondent in
connection with Sun Tan Hotels Pty Ltd (hereinafter Sun Tan). It is apposite
to note that the referral came from (...) who had already made attacks
against my person, as reported in the press articles referred to above.
15. In the issue of Le Mauricien newspaper of 09 July 2015, it was reported that
the Respondent No. 1 intended to convene me for a statement under warning
and that I would be arrested thereafter
16. On Friday 10 July 2015, the Co-Respondent issued a Communiqu, stating
inter alia, that it was the officers of Respondent No. 1 who called at the said
Ministry to secure documents in connection with Sun Tan.
17. In the issue of LExpress newspaper of 11 July 2015, mention is made of the
contradiction between the statement of the Respondent No. 1 on the one
hand and that of the Co-Respondent on the other hand, as to who had
initiated the enquiry.
18. I aver that the press articles convey the impression that my eventual
statement and/or version would be irrelevant to the decision to arrest me.
Page 2 of 11
19. The allegations as reported in the media are to the effect that:
i.
ii.
iii.
20. I aver that the imputed allegations are frivolous, baseless, malicious, intended
to harm my reputation and to prevent me from exercising my duties as DPP
independently. Moreover I aver that the conduct of any such investigation is
calculated to oust me from office.
21. Any suggestion that I could have acted in breach of section 13 of the POCA
by attending the said meeting in my capacity as director of Sun Tan is wholly
misconceived and untenable inasmuch as I was not acting as a public official
within the meaning of the POCA
22. I aver that, as DPP, I had no function nor any duty to perform nor any official
business to conduct in relation to the grant of leases of state land, the fixing of
rent or any conditions attached to the leases. I attended the said meeting in
my private capacity for the purpose of making representations for and on
behalf of Sun Tan. I took no part in the decision making process or any of the
proceedings of the Co-Respondent relating to this matter. Moreover, I could
not have exerted, nor did I exert, any pressure on any public official.
23. I am advised and verily believe that the Co-Respondent did seek legal advice
from the office of the Attorney General and that similar cases were dealt with
in a similar manner by the Co-Respondent in the light of the legal advice it
received on a case to case basis. It would therefore be ludicrous to suggest
that I had any part to play in the manner in which the Co-Respondent dealt
with the representations made for and on behalf of Sun Tan.
24. In 2008, I did, in my capacity as Parliamentary Counsel, represent the State,
in the Campement Site Owners case before the Supreme Court. It is in that
context that I gave advice to the Co-Respondent in 2008 and consequently to
Government, in relation to the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008.
25. I aver that at all material times, I acted as Director of Sun Tan, and not as
DPP, in relation to representations made by Sun Tan to the Co-Respondent.
Page 3 of 11
26. I therefore reiterate that at all material times I only acted in my private capacity in
relation to Sun Tan.
ii.
Vice Prime Minister Soodhun, who (i) is subject of prosecution before the
Intermediate Court for the offence of diffusing false news, and (ii) was
convicted on 19 January 2015, respectively for holding an unlawful public
gathering and using threatening words at a public gathering, pursuant to a
decision to prosecute by the Office of the DPP;
iii.
Mr Prakash Maunthrooa, the Chief of Staff of the Prime Ministers Office and
appointed by the State to act as director in two major state-owned
companies, is being prosecuted for aiding and abetting in the commission of
a crime, namely a corruption offence.
29. I aver that with respect to paragraph 28 (1) above, in or about January 2015,
whilst the case against (A Minister mentioned) was still ongoing before the
Intermediate Court, the (...) attempted to induce me into discontinuing
proceedings on the basis that he believed there was no case against the said
(A Minister mentioned) when, the evidence as reviewed indicated otherwise.
In a meeting attended by myself and three officers of the DPP, the (...) stated on
more than one occasion that, in his opinion, (A Minister mentioned) had
committed no offence.
30. I aver that the complete lack of reliable and independent evidence of any wrongdoing on my part that would warrant an investigation supports the inescapable
inference that the decision to refer, and the decision to open an enquiry were
made for improper and oblique motives and not because there is a proper basis
for
them.
Page 4 of 11
31. I further aver that any alleged evidence against me cannot stand the test of
reasonable grounds for suspicion in view of the manner and circumstances in
which such evidence appears to have been gathered.
32. I aver that as a result of a Cabinet decision taken on 3rd April 2015, in my
capacity as DPP I entered a Plaint with Summons on 25 June 2015 before the
Supreme Court against the State of Mauritius to seek constitutional redress,
regarding the decision to merge the ODPP with the Attorney Generals Office. I
further averred that since the new government had assumed office, in the wake of
the general elections of December 2014, numerous institutional changes had
taken place in the criminal justice system, including the termination of the
employment of the highest officials of the Respondent No. 1 and changes at the
head of institutions like the Financial Intelligence Unit, and the Central Criminal
Investigation Division.
33. On the day of my return to Mauritius, i.e. 08 July 2015, I phoned the Director
General of Respondent No 1 to express my concern at the fact that the press
reports concerning me in connection with the Sun Tan matter had the effect of
destabilising the Office of the DPP. I went on to reproach him that I was never
informed nor contacted by the Respondent No 1 and, that the only information I
had so far came from the press.
34. I have been since been contacted by phone by a retired Judge of the Supreme
Court, () and who purported to act on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, to the
following effect:
i.
ii.
iii.
Page 5 of 11
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
37. I aver that the decision to convene me or investigate my conduct, cannot be made
in the light of mere allegations and unverified evidence by reason of my tenure of
office, especially by virtue of section 93 of the Constitution of Mauritius.
38. I aver that whilst Respondent No. 1 indicated that the Co-Respondent had
referred the matter to it on Monday 06 July 2015, the latter on the other hand
stated on 11 July 2015, that it was last week that Respondent No 1 came to the
Ministry to secure documents in connection with Sun Tan. Reference to last
week could only mean the week starting Monday 29 June 2015 and ending
Sunday 05 July 2015, and not 06 July 2015, as indicated by Respondent No 1.
This discrepancy is evidence of the levity and lack of seriousness with which the
present investigation is being conducted.
39. I further aver that, in relation to the potential offences which are now being
investigated, the enquiry which has only started after 06 July 2015 relates to
events dating back to at least 4 years and in respect of which there has never
been any complaint by any person or authority in the intervening period.
Page 6 of 11
40. I note with concern that, as stated in Respondent No. 1s letter dated 13 July
2015, statements have been recorded from various persons, thereby meaning
that any person who may have implicated me in relation to a potential offence
under section 9 or section 13 of the POCA, would have done so between 06 and
13 July 2015, that is well after the public accusations made by (A Minister
mentioned) [supra paragraph 11].
41. I aver that against the above background, the present intention of the
Respondents to convene me and investigate my conduct is unlawful, made with
improper and oblique motives. I further aver that the real intention behind this
investigation is to embarrass and undermine me in my office so that it would be
difficult, if not impossible, for me to carry out my functions and I should be under a
compulsion to resign.
42. I aver that the contemplated arrest is designed to circumvent my security of tenure
of office guaranteed under the Constitution and prevent me from exercising my
duties and functions as DPP in full independence.
43. The purpose of the present application is to ensure that I receive a fair and
independent treatment in accordance with the constitutional provisions. I aver that
I am ready and willing to submit myself to any proceedings properly instituted
pursuant to section 93 of the Constitution.
44. I aver that the (...) still holding a substantive post of (...) in the Attorney
Generals Office finds himself in a clear situation of conflict and professional
embarrassment, in as much as legal advice in relation to Sun Tan was
tendered by the Attorney Generals Office.
45. I further aver that it is the duty of Respondent No. 1 which is engaged in the
investigation of alleged offences, to exercise an independent, objective and
professional judgment on the facts of each case. I aver that this has not been the
case in the present matter.
46. I aver that it could not have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution to
render a DPP liable to be treated as any other public officer as regards criminal
prosecutions, given the specific procedures laid down for removal from office
under section 93 of the Constitution.
47. I further aver that by reason of the provisions of section 82(1) of the POCA, which
provides that no prosecution for an offence under this Act [] shall be instituted
except by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the DPP
cannot be the subject of an investigation and prosecution under the POCA and
that any acts done by him in the performance of his duties can only be
investigated by a tribunal duly appointed by the President under section 93 of the
Constitution.
Page 7 of 11
Page 8 of 11
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
ii.
B. For a summons calling upon the Respondents to show cause why the
order in the nature of an interim writ of injunction granted under paragraph
A above should not be converted into an interlocutory order.
C. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, should the Judge refuse to issue the order in
the nature of an interim writ of injunction, for a summons to issue, calling
upon the Respondents to show cause why an order in the nature of an
injunction be not issued in my favour.
i.
ii.
Page 10 of 11