Africa-Press – Mauritius. The unending conflict opposing the Commissioner of Police (CP) to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is taking an ugly turn. It’s a first in the annals when a holder of a constitutional post comes out publicly against the decision of another constitutional head, and the latter taking the same route in what is perceived to be a tit-for-tat retaliation.
All this does not bode well for the country. Readers will remember that the CP took the unusual decision earlier this year to contest the stand taken by the DPP not to oppose the Moka District Court senior magistrate to grant bail, under stringent conditions, to Bruneau Laurette, accused of illicit drug possession.
We observed then that instead of putting in doubt the legal judgement of the DPP, the obvious and reasonable alternative available to the Commissioner of Police would have been a timely challenge of the magistrate’s decision in the Supreme Court on his own steam.
That was not to be. The Police Commissioner thereafter swore an affidavit in which he took issue with the decisions of the DPP which in his view would compromise police investigations in certain cases.
The CP maintains that the DPP would be violating article 71 of the Constitution and would thereby be usurping his powers as Commissioner of Police, in particular those relating to the detection and investigation of crimes or the arrest of suspects. The matter is presently before the Supreme Court.
The related background question is whether the CP or his services make free use of provisional charges, not only in drug related offences, while the investigations are far from complete and may take years, depriving an accused (but not yet tried and convicted) citizen of his freedom and rights.
In another drug case, for instance, a skipper arrested in a major drug haul in May 2021, is still on preventive detention without trial and the Bail and Remand Court have this Thursday given the police six months to lodge a formal charge failing which the suspect would be granted conditional bail.
On the other hand, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has lodged an application for judicial review of the decision of the Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy to entertain the application of Chandra Prakash Dip, son of the Commissioner of Police, for remission of the 12-month prison sentence delivered against him by the Intermediate Court into a Rs100,000 fine.
The remission recommendation in this particular case approved by the President of the Republic had raised lots of questions and protests from different quarters.
One of the arguments put forward is that the decisions of the Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy may defeat our justice system when the law provides for the President of the Republic, acting on the advice of the Commission, to radically change any sentence – even if the highest courts have ruled a guilty verdict.
For More News And Analysis About Mauritius Follow Africa-Press
