NATIONAL ASSEMBLY - USE OF KREOL MORISIEN - STANDING ORDER 5

Hon. Members, after having ruled out Junior Minister, hon. Ms Bérenger, I would like to refer the House to Standing Order 5 so that you understand why I had to take this stand. It is nothing personal, of course, and everybody knows my personal stand on the issue of introducing Creole in the National Assembly. It is not just a question of technique or technicity. Standing Order 5 says – “The proceedings and debates of the Assembly shall be in the English language, but a Member may address the Assembly in French.” I do not think there is any doubt on the fact that this is the way that is it for the moment. Hon. Prime Minister, may I seize this opportunity to tell you that maybe you can think about whether we should not have a Select Committee on the question of introducing Creole in the Assembly. I have no doubt that most Members will probably support this, but there are things to be discussed including the amendment of the Standing Orders and, as we told the House the other day, now we have lots of committees including the Standing Orders Committee, which will have to sit and maybe amongst the issues to be discussed will be the issue of language. If you wish to start again, Ms J. Bérenger, you may do so now, but I will respect your choice. Okay! Hon. Ramdass! (5.55 p.m.) Mr A. Ramdass (Third Member for Vieux Grand Port & Rose Belle): Merci, Madame la présidente. Madame la présidente, d’abord permettez-moi de commencer par saluer tout bas et remercier l’honorable Attorney General ainsi que l’honorable ministre des Terres et du logement pour avoir présenté en toute urgence à l’Assemblée ce projet de loi. Un projet de loi qui traite la question des limites du pouvoir du Directeur des poursuites publiques d’une part, et des pouvoirs du Commissaire de police de l’autre, quant au droit fondamental à la liberté de l’individu et, cela, dans le contexte spécifique du Bail Act. Madame la présidente, la gravité de cette question et l’urgence de la situation se reflètent précisément dans la crise institutionnelle dont faisait face notre démocratie sous le précédent gouvernement. Effectivement, c’était bien une première pour notre pays de voir deux institutions constitutionnelles clés de notre système de justice, notamment, le Directeur des poursuites publiques et le Commissaire de police impliquées dans une bataille juridique sans précédent. Une bataille juridique effectivement sans précédent sur la limite de leurs pouvoirs, de leurs attributs respectifs et, cela en ce qui concerne la remise en liberté d’un suspect en attendant l’issue d’une enquête. Cette bataille juridique, Madame la présidente, a, dites-vous bien, coûté pas moins de R 14 millions à l’État mauricien. Il y a quelques semaines de cela, nous avons entendu la réponse du Premier ministre suite à une question qui lui avait été posée par rapport aux dépenses encourues en termes des frais légaux et des conseils juridiques retenus par l’ancien Commissaire de police et nous avons appris que la somme de R 14 millions a été dépensée pour cette bataille juridique. Il est malheureux, Madame la présidente, que le peuple mauricien fasse le frais d’une question d’ego de la part de l’ancien Commissaire de police, celui qui agissait, selon toute évidence, clairement sur les instructions de Lakwizinn. Et, rappelons-le, Madame la présidente, la source même de cette tension institutionnelle était la décision du bureau du Directeur des poursuites publiques de ne pas soutenir mais surtout ou plutôt, de se poser à une contestation du Commissaire de police, de l’ordre de la cour, autorisant la remise en liberté conditionnelle des plusieurs individus dont, M. Bruneau Laurette, Maître Akil Bissessur, Sherry Singh, Vimen Sabapati, entre autres. Et, nous avons par la suite appris, Madame la présidente, que les charges provisoires pesant sur plusieurs de ces personnes dont je viens de vous citer, ont été purement et simplement rayées. Nous avons aussi appris qu’un ancien membre de la force policière, une certaine WPC Goomany, avait pris le devant, il n’y a pas longtemps, pour rapporter un cas possible de planting of evidence dans le cas de Vimen Sabapati. Imaginons, Madame la présidente, ces nouveaux faits, en fait, nous poussent à nous interroger si cela aurait fait honneur à notre système de justice et à notre identité comme une démocratie, si ces personnes avaient été reconduites en cellule policière, si ces personnes avaient été privées de leur liberté, si le DPP avait capitulé sous l’insistance du Commissaire de police d’alors de continuer à objecter à leur remise en liberté. Madam Speaker, this Bill could not have been presented to this Assembly at a more appropriate time. In fact, it addresses a core issue; an issue that strikes at the very heart of our democratic values and the rule of law. It relates, in fact, to the importance of giving to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the DPP, clear and unfettered powers to prosecute and also with a view to promote the sacrosanct principle of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings. In order to properly understand the importance of this Bill, Madame la présidente, we must first examine the constitutional provisions, its historical context, and its present implications. One must understand, Madam Speaker, that the independence of the DPP is not only vital for justice but it is crucial for the very survival of our democratic institutions. The role of the DPP in Mauritius, as set out under section 72 of our Constitution, confers upon him the power to initiate control and discontinue criminal proceedings. Now, Madam Speaker, with the adoption of the present Bail Act back in the year 1999, the presumption in favour of bail was given a statutory footing under section 3 of the Act. In fact, section 3 provided that every defendant or detainee shall be entitled to be released on bail subject to section 4, and section 4 of the Act provided exhaustively the grounds on which a Court may refuse to release on bail a defendant or a detainee. Now, one major shortcoming in the Act, which is precisely what is sought to be curbed, what is sought to be corrected under the present amendment, was that it did not clearly specify which entity between the Commissioner of Police and that of the DPP was vested with clear powers to decide whether or not to object to the release on bail of a defendant or detainee. And quite regrettably, Madam Speaker, this important shortcoming allowed for a tension to creep into the rapport between the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, as section 4, subsection 4 of the Act referred fleetingly to an objection to bail formulated either by the Commissioner of Police or the Director of Public Prosecutions. But it did not, unfortunately, cater for any situation where there is a conflict, there is a divergence of opinion between those two posts as to whether or not a defendant or detainee ought to be released on bail. Et bien évidemment, Madame la présidente, cette incertitude, cette lacune dans nos lois a été utilisée tout naturellement par le MSM, fidèle à son habitude, à travers l’ancien commissaire de police, à des fins politiques, afin de satisfaire un agenda politique et dans l’unique but de persécuter ses adversaires politiques. In fact, when a political party controls the prosecution process, Madam Speaker, there is danger. There is danger: danger that the justice system will be used as a tool for retribution; danger of a loss of trust in the legal system, leading to an erosion of our democratic values. And it is precisely the mandate of this newly elected Government, Madam Speaker, to consolidate our constitutional and democratic values already embodied in our Government Programme. Justice cannot, Madam Speaker, be impartial if those in power can manipulate it for their own political advantage, and this is, in fact, precisely why an independent judiciary, and by extension, an independent Director of Public Prosecutions is essential for the protection of human rights and the rule of law. This Bill, Madam Speaker, provides that where the Commissioner of Police intends to object to the release of bail of a defendant or detainee, he will now be under an obligation to seek the legal advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions and will be bound by such advice and decision of the DPP. And by adopting this mechanism, Madam Speaker, the Bail (Amendment) Bill seeks to grant a prerogative to the DPP who, unlike the Commissioner of Police, is always required to be a person with legal training and experience as a barrister in order to be eligible for the post. In fact, a legal background, in my very humble view, Madam Speaker, is essential to enable the decision maker, the DPP, to assess whether the exceptions to bail, as set out under section 4 of the Act, can be invoked and whether such motion has a reasonable prospect of success. And this, undoubtedly, Madam Speaker, allows for an efficient allocation of resources and to present before the Court only meritorious cases for a lawful restriction of a person’s freedom of movement. It is also apposite to recall that the DPP is required, Madam Speaker, to act fairly and impartially in presenting a case and it is not the role of the DPP to secure a conviction at all costs. In my humble view, Madam Speaker, in fact, he is a disinterested party insofar as a defendant or a detainee is concerned. Lastly, Madam Speaker, the DPP’s security of tenure is akin to that of a Supreme Court Judge, reinforcing the very notion that justice cannot and should not be influenced by political or external pressures. Madame la présidente, je faillirais à mon devoir si je ne profitais pas de cette occasion qui m’est accordée aujourd’hui pour exprimer quand même une certaine crainte ; une certaine crainte par rapport à l’application d’un aspect de ce Bail (Amendement Act). Cette loi, Madame la présidente, si elle est votée, si elle est promulguée - et elle le sera certainement - pose quand même une certaine difficulté. Donc, j’ai une crainte. Si elle est votée, elle aura pour conséquence qu’il y aura un nombre grandissant de dossiers qui seront référés au bureau du Directeur des poursuites publiques. Et là, nous avons probablement une difficulté, dans la mesure où il est impératif que ces dossiers soient traités, soit étudiés de manière rapide et diligente, puisqu’il y va de la liberté de l’individu ; il y va de la liberté du citoyen mauricien. Donc, il est impératif, Madam Speaker, que nous ne nous retrouvions pas dans une situation – et là, je parle un peu sous la correction de mes confrères et consœurs ici présents, dont vous-même, Madame la présidente – où nous sommes en cour, ayant à faire face à des demandes répétitives de renvoi de la part du représentant de la poursuite sous prétexte que the stand of the DPP is not ready. On ne le souhaiterait pas. C’est une phrase que nous entendons souvent en cour nécessairement, n’est-ce pas, Madam Speaker. Donc, je souhaite que le bureau du Directeur des poursuites publiques fasse des arrangements nécessaires afin qu’une équipe soit dédiée justement pour traiter ces dossiers en toute urgence et avec diligence puisque, comme je l’ai dit, il y va de la liberté du citoyen mauricien. En guise de conclusion, Madam Speaker, if we agree that the power of prosecute must rest with an independent Director of Public Prosecutions as the principle is enshrined under section 72 of our Constitution, it logically follows that we should also agree that the power to object or not to object to the release on bail of a defendant also rests with an independent Director of Public Prosecutions. And this is precisely what the Bill brings about, and this is precisely why I am supporting this Bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you for respecting the time. Hon. Prime Minister! (6.05 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, recent times have seen an unprecedented, I should also say unfortunate conflict between the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions in matters relating to bail. Of relevance, as hon. Baboolall mentioned, is the case of the Commissioner of Police against Mr Akil Bissessur and others. The police objected to bail in that case for Mr Bissessur, but the Office of the DPP representing the Commissioner of Police had no objection. That should have been the end of the matter, but, in spite of this, the representative of the police, in Court, made a statement to state that the stand of this Commissioner of Police was to object to bail in the present case in spite of what the DPP had said and went further to say that if need be, the Office of the Commissioner of Police will solicit help from outside of the DPP’s Office. In fact, the Commissioner of Police hired the services of counsel from the Bar to represent the police and entered a case before the Supreme Court to quash the decision of the District Magistrate. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in the matter pursuant to section 82(1) of the Constitution. As I have said, Madam Speaker, this is unprecedented. I think hon. Baboolall put his finger on it. It should never have happened; we should not have had the Bill today. Worse, Madam Speaker, public funds had to be dished out to various lawyers, which was totally unnecessary. Waste of public funds; dishing out money to lawyers chosen by the Commissioner of Police, probably in cohort with the Prime Minister, and we do not have to guess who were the lawyers and how they were chosen! From August 2021 to November 2024, the CP has retained the services of five counsels for eight cases, including one King’s Counsel and one attorney – we all know who the attorney is. The cost to the State, as hon. Ramdass just said, is over Rs14 m. Over Rs14 m.! The only objective was to undermine the professional integrity of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions – a post which is constitutional. This situation arose because as per the then provisions of the Bail Act, namely section 4 (4) of the Bail Act – Section 4 “(4) (a) Where a Magistrate has ordered the release on bail of a defendant or [a detainee notwithstanding an objection by the Commissioner of Police or the Director of Public Prosecutions on any of the grounds set out in this section], the Commissioner of Police or the Director of Public Prosecutions; [as the case may be], may, within 7 days of the determination of the Magistrate, apply to the Supreme Court for an order setting aside the decision of the Magistrate [to release the defendant or detainee].” Conflicts of such nature between law enforcement authorities undermine public confidence in our institutions and must never be allowed to happen again. Such conflicts could also be due because nobody in their right mind thought that this could happen. This is why we have to come with this amendment to the Bill, to make it clear what are the provisions of the new Bail Act, especially in cases where bail is objected to or in cases where a decision to grant bail is challenged. In order to avoid such situations from recurring, through the Amendment Bill that is being brought to the House, we want to make it absolutely clear what are the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions and what are those of the Commissioner of Police. First of all, we have to make it crystal clear what we mean by detainee, the definition of a detainee. Under the current law – “"detainee" means a person who is under arrest upon reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence;” From what we see now, “reasonable suspicion” leaves room for interpretation, and it is a wide definition. Under this Amendment Bill, in order not to leave any room for doubt as who is concerned by the provisions of this Act, a detainee is defined as – “"detainee" means a person who is under arrest and is provisionally charged before a Court;” The ambiguity of the law, as it is, requires more clarity. This is why, now, with this Bill – “5. Section 4 of principal Act amended (3) where an application for release on bail of a defendant or a detainee is refused, the Court shall place on record the written reasons for its determination.” Additionally, the Bill provides for a situation of conflicts in relation to the release on bail of a defendant or a detainee. Accordingly, the sole discretion not to object to bail would be that of the Commissioner of Police. However, where the Commissioner of Police has the intention to object to the release on bail of a defendant or a detainee, he shall seek the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the decision not to object or not will rest solely with the Director of Public Prosecutions. More importantly, Madam Speaker, the law as it currently stands, provides that when a magistrate has ordered the release on bail of a defendant or a detainee, both the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions have the power to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court. That shall no longer be the case. The Bill provides that the power to challenge such decision before the Supreme Court shall henceforth rest solely with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Nothing to do with the Commissioner of Police! The Bail (Amendment) Bill, therefore, will give greater clarity and unambiguity to the respective powers of the CP and the DPP in relation to bail. This amendment, Madam Speaker, to the Bail Act makes it clear what are the powers of the CP and what are the powers of the DPP in relation to bail. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much. You will probably be in time for Iftar, I suppose.

Yes, there is time. (6.13 p.m.) Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I would like to thank all those who have participated in this debate. Again, what we have heard is the importance of democracy; what we have heard is liberty, and we have also heard about ‘gel’! But all this with the whole idea of what we have to do away with! In God’s name, thank God, we did away with them! We are now fighting, struggling and working together as one country, as one people, in order to restore democracy. Let me also, at this juncture, state the following: it is quite interesting how things change in life, and so fast! Only a few years back, I recall, since I am a barrister by profession, I was involved in a case that is being dealt with – so, there is no issue of conflict – , I am sure that the then accused would not mind me saying his name today. It was Bruneau Laurette. I remember when I was in Court appearing for him to move for bail, all those sections of the law that we have seen, how it has been abused of by the then Commissioner of Police, came up. We won bail in spite of it being a very difficult task. I recall how in those days, there was fake democracy, as a hon. Member said. Why do I say that? Because when we won bail, the Commissioner of Police issued a communiqué. That was on 28 February 2023. For all to remember, in that communiqué, the Commissioner of Police said the following – “The decision of the Office of the DPP therefore creates an ‘evil precedent’.” That ‘evil precedent’ that the then Commissioner of Police was referring to was the decision of the Office of the DPP, after having looked at the ruling of learned magistrate, decided that he will not object to the release. The Commissioner of Police, for the first time in history, for the first time ever since we had our Constitution, our independence, went as far as to say it was an ‘evil precedent.’ To add insult to injury, what did the then Prime Minister do? He made a declaration and he said – “Mafia finn infiltre ban institision sa pei la.” The GIS published the communiqué of the Commissioner of Police. The GIS does not publish the communiqué of a Commissioner of Police! The GIS publishes the work of Government – the Executive! So, there had disappeared the respect one must have for institutions, where the Commissioner of Police had himself felt that he was part of the Government Ministers! He was a little department in the Office of the Prime Minister whereby whatever he said had to be aligned with what the then Prime Minister wanted, and had to be published by the GIS! Those days are over! When hon. Mrs Leu-Govind said, ‘let Mauritius be Mauritius again’, how right she is! This is what we are standing up to fight for. So, this is a very important date for democracy. I said it last time when I intervened, I say it again: it is a pity that the Leader of the Opposition is not present here. His position, his role and his responsibility are in the Constitution. It is not only for him to earn his packet at the end of the month! It is for him to be here and to be the voice of the people! But then, not only is he not here, they will also not be at the Municipal Elections! Then, again, as I said, things change very rapidly! I will say to the Almighty: thank God, we are now coming on the right path. So, these are my words, Madam Speaker. I do commend this Bill to the House.

Thank you. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed.

You are not going to miss Iftar. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) The Bail (Amendment) Bill (No. III of 2025) was considered and agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Bail (Amendment) Bill (No. III of 2025) was read a third time and passed.