Madam Speaker, I am informed that the Commission of Prerogative of Mercy has, for the period 2015 to 2024, received 7,109 petitions for grant of pardon, out of which 4,599 have been acceded to. Information indicating the names of the persons granted pardon and the offence in respect of which conviction was secured is being compiled and will be placed in the Library of the National Assembly.

18 Madam Speaker, the House will appreciate and concede that the question covers a relatively long period of time and implies compiling a list of thousands of names of convicted persons who, for the past 10 years, have applied to the Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy and who have benefitted from its decisions. The list, as I said, will be circulated when the exercise is completed, but some indications of cases of notorious reputation have already been flagged in the media, which have provoked widespread criticism. Of these, the infamous case of one Chandra Prakashsing Dip, found guilty in a case of fraud and sentenced to one year of imprisonment. Here, the Commission intervened to substitute the prison sentence with a fine of Rs100,000. This was a case where the Commission delivered a decision whilst a stay order – stay order – of the judgement was in force against a convicted individual, that is, Mr Dip, who was therefore under judicial control. It has never happened before; while the judiciary says hold on, the Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy decided that no, we do not have to wait for the judiciary. And that convicted individual, as we know, happened to be the son of the former Commissioner of Police, and it was easy for the public to draw its own conclusion and express the disgust of such an overt defiance of the judicial system. This case was another scandalous legacy left by the previous regime. And we need to make sure that this does not happen again. That is what we have to make sure of. We need now to retain two fundamental points from this state of affairs – (i) This was a clear case of violation of the principle of separation of powers, whereby the powers of the judiciary have been outrageously usurped by the executive, by a clique in power. This is what happened here. You scratch my back; I will scratch your back. I will keep your secrets; you keep my secrets. This is what happened. (ii) The Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy, through its conduct, was perceived by the public as blatantly lacking independence. Again, we had very good people in the past, but this is what happened this time. It was perceived as yet another striking illustration of the decay of our public institutions under the previous regime. Madam Speaker, this episode showcases the harm which an irresponsible Executive can cause to a country, going to the extent of perverting the course of justice to satiate the totalitarian appetite of a petty dictator.

19 Madam Speaker, we intend, and we will, revisit how the Commission is set up and how it should function to prevent a repeat of such a scandalous matter.

Yes, hon. Third Member Beau Bassin and Petite Rivière. ROAD ACCIDENTS – DRUG IMPAIRED DRIVING – MEASURES