Rédaction Africa Links 24 with Sarah Jane Lebrasse
Published on 2024-03-16 05:00:22
Judge Karuna Gunesh-Balaghee, in an interim judgment rendered yesterday, rejected the request made by the State, the Police Commissioner, and the former head of the Central CID, Hemant Jangi, to set aside the Rs 225 million damages lawsuit filed by Navin Ramgoolam. These three parties, targeted by the former Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party, argued that they could not be held responsible for his detention after the operations in February 2015 at River Walk and Rue Desforges, since he was under judicial control. However, the judge, reviewing and analyzing the mechanism of provisional charge, firmly held that the police could influence this aspect of justice and could not evade their responsibility.
By way of a Plaint with Summons, Navin Ramgoolam jointly claims Rs 225 million in damages from the State, the Police Commissioner, and Hemant Jangi, who was then in charge of the Central CID, following searches conducted at his residences in River Walk, Floréal, and SSR Street in Port-Louis.
Subsequently, Navin Ramgoolam was arrested by the officers of the Central CID under the supervision of Hemant Jangi and detained on several occasions as part of the investigations. Several provisional charges were filed against him and maintained, spanning over a period of more than 17 months, with several provisional charges later dropped.
Navin Ramgoolam reaffirms that these arrests and detentions were illegal and arbitrary against him, part of a political vendetta orchestrated by the Central CID under Hemant Jangi’s leadership and the Police Commissioner, in order to “please the Prime Minister, Pravind Jugnauth.”
The State, the Police Commissioner, and Hemant Jangi had invoked a legal point, a Plea in Limine Litis, to claim the dismissal of the Rs 225 million lawsuit filed by Navin Ramgoolam. These parties argued that after his arrest and charge under provisional charges, Navin Ramgoolam was under judicial control, not under police administrative control.
Me Yvan Jean-Louis, Acting Assistant Solicitor-General, based on section 4 of the District and Intermediate Courts Act, argued in the Supreme Court that once a provisional charge is filed, the police no longer have control over how long the provisional charge is maintained. He added that this decision would fall under the magistrate’s jurisdiction.
Navin Ramgoolam’s lawyers, including Gavin Glover, Senior Counsel, Robin Ramburn, Senior Counsel, and Hamid Moollan, King’s Counsel, argued that judicial oversight does not exclude the responsibility of the investigating authorities. They explained that these authorities remain responsible as they can oppose any request for bail and request the maintenance of the provisional charge by claiming that the investigation is not complete.
In the interim ruling, Judge Gunesh-Balaghee considered the circumstances under which a provisional charge comes into existence. The decision lies with the police who decide to apprehend a detainee based on the information available to them.
The judge acknowledges that it is true that the police do not need to present any evidence to support a provisional charge at this stage of the investigation. However, the police must have at least a reasonable ground to arrest a suspect and file a provisional charge against him.
Judge Gunesh-Balaghee thus rejected the argument of the State’s legal representative, the Police Commissioner, and Jangi that the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to support a provisional charge simply did not arise and that Navin Ramgoolam’s claim was, in sum, defective.
Continuing her analysis, the judge considered that the magistrate, sitting in the District Court, issues a warrant based on the information provided by the police. The provisional charge is drafted by the police and sworn by a police officer to the magistrate, in order to place the accused under judicial control.
These provisions aim to ensure that the constitutional rights of any suspect are protected. But at this stage, it is not the magistrate’s role to determine the validity of the provisional charge, the judge added.
The discretionary power of the Court to grant bail or dismiss the provisional charge will depend largely on the evidence collected and submitted at this stage by the police investigators. The judge finds that “the contention of learned Counsel for the defendants that it is ultimately up to the discretion of a Magistrate whether to issue a provisional information… is clearly preposterous.”
For all these reasons, she concluded that “there is no merit in the plea in limine which is accordingly set aside.” The Rs 225 million claims trial on behalf of Navin Ramgoolam stands. The case will be mentioned before the Master and Registrar of the Supreme Court on the 28th of this month.
Read the original article(French) on Le Mauricien
