Africa-Press – Mauritius. The reaction of Attorney General Maneesh Gobin as revealed in a press release issued on Sunday, and during a press conference held on Saturday and Monday, following the publication of extracts from the alleged report of the judicial inquiry concerning the cause and the circumstances of the death of SoopramanienKistnen, last Friday, betrays an apprehension of the power in place as to the highly explosive potential of this affair and whose ins and outs were revealed in the report of the magistrate VidyaMungroo-Jugurnauth.
Is this really the case, in your opinion? Me Antoine Domingue: First of all, I would like to say that for the moment, because of the inertia of the DPP, no one can know if the extracts from the document that are in circulation come from the ‘Judicial Report’.
What I see is that the copy that is in circulation is not authenticated and it is visibly incomplete, given its pagination. But that doesn’t mean the excerpts we have in front of us aren’t from the Judicial Report.
If it is confirmed that these large excerpts that we have been able to read come from the ‘Judicial Report’, in this case, the police, the government and many other people and institutions including many ‘public officials’ have concern to TO DO.
The credibility of the police has already been undermined by the taser and torture. This time, she suffered a setback from which she will struggle to recover.
The disclosure of the ‘Judicial Report’ in its entirety will have multiple consequences that it is impossible to assess at this stage. Which leads me to say that it is now imperative that the DPP immediately release the Judicial Report in its entirety. That way, we’ll know where we stand and that’ll put an end to all that gossip and idle speculation.
If the ‘Judicial Report’ and the ‘Court Record’ have been forwarded to the DPP since November of last year, as we are now entitled to think, I am surprised that all these documents have not yet been submitted to whom it may concern, ie the police, the ICAC and the widow.
They all have a legitimate interest in being informed of the cause and circumstances of Kistnen’s death. They all have a legitimate interest in the communication of these documents. They are not “busy bodies, interlopers or cranks”.
So, if we want the police to be able to investigate, we must give the police investigators all the means to do so: not only the report but also the depositions, the documents and the ‘Exhibits’.
As ‘Responsible Officer’, the CP must be informed so that he knows whether to initiate disciplinary actions. He can only do so if he is in the presence of all the facts.
I also want to point out that on Monday, October 17, our Keeper of the Seals (the Attorney General), while claiming that the excerpts that are in free circulation are not authentic (how could he know that if he hasn’t not read the report?), takes care to reassure that justice will nevertheless take its course, no one will be spared and those who would have faulted will be punished.
* It is argued that the DPP is perfectly entitled to release the report in this specific case also as other forensic investigation reports have been released in the past. Your opinion ?
This has been done on several occasions, and this, in the public interest, among others, when ten people had tragically died by drowning during a flash flood (Flash Flood) in Port Louis.
The report had not only been unveiled, but the entire file of the judicial investigation had also been given to the relatives of the deceased and to their ‘legaladvisers’.
My attorney relied on these documents in support of several claims for damages that are before the Supreme Court. The same principle should apply to Mr. Kistnen’s heirs and assigns as was the case for Mr. Wright and the other people whose loved ones had tragically died by drowning.
On the other hand, I would like to point out that when you look at the local case law since 1956, on all occasions, invariably, without any exception, plaintiffs have had the representative of the DPP summoned before the court, whether in the supreme court or in the intermediary in order to produce as evidence the report, depositions and other documents arising from the judicial inquiry.
The Supreme Court as well as the Intermediate Court relied on these documents to make their judgments. Vve Commins v Mauritius Government Railways in 1956 before Sir Francis HerchenroderCJ, argued by Jules Koenig, Pierre Louis v CEB in 2021 in Supreme Court before Judge GaitreeManna.
Ramnauthv Rainbow in 2022 in the middle court are there to attest to this. This is an integral part of our ‘curriculum’ and the procedure in our courts.
I must also add that in cases of suicide, violent death, suspicious death or when the death of a person is due to “unnatural causes”, the DPP is obliged to order a judicial inquiry. No matter the choice of words, it’s actually a ‘Coroner’s Inquest’.
Contrary to what the Keeper of the Seals claims in his press release of Sunday October 16, one cannot and has never disputed such a report on the causes and circumstances of death “and whetherthere has been foulplay”.
* The Attorney General is, according to our constitution, the “principal legal adviser” of the government. Does his position as revealed in his press release issued on Sunday constitute a violation of the separation of powers?
This press release suffers from a lack of cogitation having been issued hastily on a certain Sunday – that is to say the day after the press conference by Maneesh Gobin who was speaking as Secretary General of the MSM, flanked by Mrs. Leela Devi Dookun (Yogida Sawmynaden’s running mate).
Having said what he said on Saturday as Secretary General of the MSM, Maneesh Gobin was very misguided to issue this Sunday statement as Attorney General and Minister of Justice where he allows himself to diminish the value of the ‘ Judicial Report’, where he suggests that the report is questionable and invites the parties involved to challenge it.
For More News And Analysis About Mauritius Follow Africa-Press
