Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am informed that the report of the Fact-Finding Committee set up to shed light on the circumstances that led to Baby S. being admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) of the Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam National Hospital on 21 October 2022, was handed over to the then Minister of Gender Equality and Family Welfare on 22 November 2022. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am further informed that the committee was mandated to carry out an in-depth enquiry and to submit its report on the basis of the terms of reference as follows – a) Investigate into the circumstances leading to the baby being admitted to the NICU; b) Investigate on the management of and services being provided to the baby; c) Investigate on the management of the residential care institutions, shelters for children falling under the purview of the National Children’s Council, in general, and d) Make recommendations for – (i) addressing shortcomings identified;

88 (ii) reforms to be brought with regard to the procedures for the placement of minors in residential institutions/shelters for children, and (iii) the management of residential institutions/shelters for children. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to inform the House that the report of the Fact-Finding Committee is being presently examined and consideration will be given to the recommendations or even the report itself being released in due course.

Yes, one last question. Time is nearly over!

Je vous remercie, M. le président, would the Minister inform the House what measures have been implemented so far based on the recommendations of the Fact- Finding Committee? Thank you.

As I informed the House, the report is still under consideration and further actions will be taken in due course.

Thank you. Hon. Members, the Table has been advised that the following PQs have been withdrawn: B/237, B/238, B/240, B/242, B/243, B/245, B/246, B/247, B/248, B/249, B/250, B/251, B/252, B/254, B/255, B/256, B/257, B/258, B/259, B/260, B/262, B/263, B/264, B/265, B/266. Time is over! The hon. Madam Speaker will take the Chair. At this stage, Madam Speaker took the Chair.

Please be seated. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. MOTION SUSPENSION OF S.O. 10(2)

Madam Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that all the business on today’s Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order 10. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to. PUBLIC BILLS First Reading

89 On motion made and seconded, The Public Inquiries Bill (No. V of 2025) were read a first time. Second Reading THE BAIL (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. III of 2025) Order for Second Reading read. (4.16 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Bail (Amendment) Bill (No. III) of 2025 be read a second time. Madam Speaker, the term “bail” is a common term that is frequently used in our legal jargon, and I presume, in other jurisdictions also. However, the term “bail” remains an undefined term in our law books. It is not even defined under the Bail Act of 1999, which is the main legislation that deals with bail. Even in the Constitution, the term “bail” is not defined, nor is the term “bail” used, other than under section 5(3A) which has, anyway, been declared unconstitutional. However, Madam Speaker, the alternative term use in the supreme law of this country is “liberty”. In the law book “Released on Bail: Law and Practice”, written by one D. C. Pandey from India, it is mentioned under Chapter 2 thereof, and I quote – “The dictionary meaning of the expression ‘bail’ denotes a security for appearance of a prisoner for his release. Etymologically, the word is derived from an old French verb ‘bailer’, which means to “give” or “to deliver”, although another view is that its derivation is from Latin term ‘bajulare’, meaning “to bear a burden.”” Just like we all bajulare the previous government. It goes further on to state, and I quote – “That [T]he intent of the arrest being only to compel an appearance in court at the return of the writ, that purpose is equally answered, whether the Sheriff detains his person, or takes sufficient security for his appearance, called bail … because the defendant is bailed, or delivered to his sureties, upon their giving security for his appearance…” Bail is accordingly, Madam Speaker, a conditional liberty and the right to personal liberty is a fundamental right that is enshrined in our Constitution under section 5 thereof. Bail thus stands at the crossroads of liberty and security, between the presumption of innocence and the imperative of justice.

90 However, Madam Speaker, in lieu of upholding this fundamental right of a citizen to be at liberty, this House will recall that, in the not so past, the then Commissioner of Police disagreed on many occasions with the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to object to the release of on bail of several defendants. This situation even led to the Commissioner of Police lodging a plaint before the Supreme Court [The Commissioner of Police v The Director of Public Prosecutions SCR No.124745] for constitutional relief pursuant to section 83 challenging the powers of the DPP with regard to, inter alia, bail proceedings at investigation stage. Madam Speaker, since the institution of this new Government, this House will certainly agree that this conflict has subsided, but to avoid any such conflict occurring again in the future, this Bill is being proposed so as to amend the Bail Act with a view to delimiting the respective powers of the DPP and those of the CP with regard to matters pertaining to the release on bail of a defendant or detainee, and with a view to bringing about certainty in this area of the law. Madam Speaker, let me now explain to the House how this uncertainty arose. As per section 4(4)(b) of the Bail Act, it provides that where, immediately after ordering the release of a defendant or detainee, the Magistrate is notified by the DPP that an application to set aside his decision is being made before the Supreme Court and that a stay of execution is required, the Magistrate shall stay execution of the order and remand the defendant or detainee until the Supreme Court determines the application. In other words, Madam Speaker, only the DPP, and not the Commissioner of Police, has the power to move for a stay of the decision of the Magistrate. However, and most surprisingly, section 4(4)(b) of the Bail Act further provides that where a Magistrate has ordered the release on bail of a defendant or detainee, both the DPP and the Commissioner of Police have the power to make an application before the Supreme Court to set aside the decision to release the defendant or detainee on bail. These aforementioned provisions are not in consonant with each other as, on the one hand, it is only the DPP who has the power to move for a stay of execution of the decision of the Magistrate to release a defendant or detainee on bail while, on the other hand, both the DPP and Commissioner of Police have the power to make an application to the Supreme Court to set aside the decision of a Magistrate to release a defendant or detainee on bail.

91 This is absurd, Madam Speaker. If you do not have the power to move for a stay of execution of the decision of a Magistrate, which power is conferred precisely make an application to the Supreme Court to set aside the decision of the Magistrate, how can you, when not having the power to move for a stay of execution of the decision of the Magistrate, have the power to make an application to the Supreme Court? In fact, this uncertainty in the law has created this situation of conflict, the more so that two authorities cannot have the same powers. I have perused the Hansard debates to the Bail Bill of 1999 and, astonishingly, the Bail Bill which was debated in this Assembly did not contain the provisions that I mentioned earlier. In fact, Madam Speaker, these provisions were introduced at Committee Stage of that Bill. Maybe, and I say maybe, when amending the Bill, the Bail Bill of 1999 at Committee Stage, a mistake in the drafting of the new provisions may have been made, thus creating that uncertainty in the law. Moreover, the current law grants parallel authority to both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Police to object to bail. The intention was never to create conflict but to ensure continuity. Therefore, in the absence of the DPP’s representative, the police could object to bail based on factual concerns. The DPP, upon reviewing the case and preparing for the hearing, would determine whether the objection was legally justified. If the DPP disagreed, the objection would be withdrawn, and the police would abide by this decision. However, recent practice has deviated from this. The then Commissioner of Police has claimed the power to persist in objecting to bail, and even when the DPP - constitutionally entrusted with prosecutorial oversight - considered that there was no legal basis for such opposition. Worse still, the Commissioner of Police engaged the services of lawyers in the private practice to argue cases of the DPP found untenable. This encroachment blurred the lines between investigation and prosecution, two distinct functions assigned by the Constitution to two separate authorities. It led to a toxic situation – one where the police and the apex prosecuting authority were in open conflict, forced into lawsuits against each other. One where public trust in this justice system eroded, as citizens questioned whose orders the police were truly following. One where suspicions of political interference in the detention of citizens became all to justified.

92 With a view to therefore addressing these issues, this Bill reinstates the primacy of the DPP in prosecutorial decision-making, ensuring that bail objections are legally sound, free from undue influence, and consistent with the rule of law. Madam Speaker, a Magistrate’s ruling on bail depends on the objections raised by the prosecution. These objections must be grounded in facts – facts best known to the police. Whether an accused has strong family ties that mitigate the risk of evading justice, whether key witnesses remain to be interviewed and need to be protected from interference, these are factual considerations for the police to highlight. As such clause 4 of the Bill provides that the Commissioner of Police will have the sole discretion not to object to the release on bail of a defendant or detainee before a court. However, where an application is made before a Court for the release on bail of a defendant or detainee and the Commissioner of Police has the intention to object to such release, he shall seek the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions thereon and the decision to object or not to object to such release shall rest solely on the DPP. The reasoning to give the DPP the sole discretion is because denying bail is a question of law, one that falls within the competence of the DPP only. Madam Speaker, Clause 6 of the Bill further provides that where a Magistrate orders the release on bail of a defendant or detainee, the power to about the Supreme Court for an order setting aside the determination of the Magistrate to release the defendant or detainee on bail shall henceforth rest solely on the DPP, in lieu and instead of both the DPP and the Commissioner of Police. In addition, it is being provided, in clause 6 of the Bill, that where the DPP fails to apply to the Supreme Court for an order setting aside the determination of the Magistrate to release a defendant or detainee on bail not later than 7 days after such an order, the defendant or detainee who had been remanded to custody must, on the next day following the expiry of the 7-day period, be brought before the Court who shall thereupon release him on bail as originally ordered by the Court. Opportunity has also been taken, Madam Speaker, – a) in clause 3 of the Bill, to redefine the term “detainee”; and b) in clause 5 of the Bill, to clarify some bail-related provisions. I wish to inform the House that the Office of the DPP and the DPP have been consulted and he has no objection to the amendments being proposed to the Bail Act.

93 Madam Speaker, I am being tasked in the absence my good friend, the hon. Attorney General, who is not present and is unable to come here today to pronounce this speech. I would like to…

I am sorry, hon. Minister, may I just say a word?

Yes.

I was actually thinking that maybe, it is important for the record, that you should say that you are now Acting Attorney General and it is in that capacity that you are making this speech and you are going to run through the Bill. Thank you. Carry on, please!

This is precisely what I was about to say at this juncture. This is what I was about to say now, and this is why I took note here. I have said that I have been tasked with having to pronounce this speech today in the National Assembly as Acting Attorney General. My good friend, the hon. Attorney General, cannot attend the National Assembly today. I have spoken to him just before pronouncing this speech and sought further instructions from him. I would like to not only thank him, but also, thank all the officers at the Attorney General’s Office and those who have drafted this Bill. They have done an excellent job. I also thank them for having briefed me in the absence of my, I would say, a Senior Counsel, my learned senior, for pronouncing and presenting this Bill to the Assembly. So, if I may now go on. The Bill is not merely a procedural matter, Madam Speaker. It is a constitutional and societal issue. The right to liberty is sacred, but so too is public confidence in our justice system. This Bill reaffirms a fundamental principle, that is, the administration of justice must be guided by law, not convenience, and certainly not political influence. The Bail (Amendment) Bill before the House brings must needed clarity to a legal framework that, in recent times, has been clouded by uncertainty and exploited for political ends. Like the recent amendments to the Financial Crimes Commission Act, this Bill restores clarity, fairness and the rule of law. It ensures that the decisions on bail are made by those constitutionally entrusted to do so and that the balance between individual freedom and the pursuit of justice is upheld.

94 With these words, Madam Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

Thank you. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded.

Yes, hon. Minister! (4.31 p.m.) The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade (Mr D. Ramful): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I will be very short since we are dealing with a few amendments to the Bail Act. But I should say that although the amendments are few, they go a long way in showing our determination and our commitment to enhance transparency in the decision-making process of our institutions and also in reinforcing the powers and the independence of our institutions. Today, we are talking about the powers of the Police, the Commissioner of police in particular, and also, the DPP’s Office. Madam Speaker, we probably do not realise, but in a very short span of time, we have done so much in restoring the image of our institutions. Some of the Ministers here will concur with me – we are part of the Cabinet and we know how the hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Deputy Prime Minister have been working so hard in bringing amendments before this House to restore the image of our institutions. We are talking about institutions having constitutional status, not parastatal bodies, not institutions under Ministries, but we are talking here about very important institutions which are in our Constitution. The population has witnessed that as soon as we have come in power, the hon. Prime Minister has brought in very important amendments in order to restore the image of these institutions. Madam Speaker, this Parliament is a vivid example – your nomination as Speaker. You are shining in the Chair, Madam Speaker!

Votre rayonnement est en train d’éclairer les débats dans cette Chambre. For just one minute, just compare, I was in this House…

Ayo!

(Interruptions)

Do not compare!

95

Just for one minute… An hon. Member: Non ! Même pas ! Même pas !

…just compare how the debates are going on now and compare it to the ten last years! An hon. Member: Ayo!

I know in the previous debates, orators have been speaking about it. But it is important that we repeat it and repeat it again because we do not want this to happen again to our democracy. On a récemment apporté les amendements, the Financial Crimes Commission (Amendment) Bill was introduced. Once again, in order to bring transparency, afin de restaurer la crédibilité et l’indépendance du DPP on cases with regard to corruption and anti-money laundering. Madame la présidente, il y a plusieurs exemples where this Government has had to intervene, as I have said, in a very short span of time to bring in corrective measures. The Police Force is another example. Qu’est-ce qu’on n’a pas vu ? Qu’est-ce qu’on n’a pas témoigné sous l’ancien régime par rapport au commissaire de police ? Today, we have a new Commissioner who is rebuilding the trust of the people in the Police Force. Never in the history of our country have we seen, have we witnessed our institutions being so undermined. Their image tarnished by a government as has been the case over the past 10 years. As I have said and I repeat it because it is important that people know we are not talking about minor institutions; we are talking about very important institutions that have constitutional status. Madame la présidente, when the drafters of the Constitution, the past political leaders were sitting in Lancaster House trying to bring in propositions to consolidate our Constitution, ils mettaient des garde-fous so that they can secure the independence of our institutions. There was a reason behind that. It is because they wanted the population to have trust in our Constitution and in our institutions. These were the reasons why they had imposed garde-fous. They wanted the institutions to not only operate in independence, but also be seen to operate in independence. Madame la présidente, on parlait à cette époque, if you go through le procès-verbal de ces comités, you will see that they were even talking at that time about the queen appointing the Commissioner of Police, because they wanted these institutions to have the independence that is required so that the people can trust these institutions. Mais malheureusement, sous

96 l’ancien régime, cela n’a pas été le cas. By starting from the top; la présidence, Madame la présidente, there was a mistrust between the President at that time, and the Prime Minister. L'affaire Sobrinho…

(Interruptions)

La présidente de la République a même institué une commission d’enquête ratée without consultation from the Cabinet of Ministers. Et puis, elle s’est retrouvée elle-même face à une commission d’enquête. So, there was that mistrust between the two institutions and c’est comique, mais we could have ended up in an institutional clash between two very high institutions in our Constitution: la présidente de la République et le bureau du Premier ministre. Vous imaginez? There was also the Commissioner of Police. You remember, the Commissioner of Police was placed on probation, even the head of the CID! He also was on contract and they were being used to arrest political opponents. Madam Speaker, there was also the recommendation of the Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy. I remember the case of the son of the former Commissioner of Police, wiping out a conviction of twelve months’ imprisonment without any reason and in total opacity. This is how our institutions were functioning at that time. The political appointment of political agents dans l’Electoral Supervisory Commission and the Electoral Boundaries Commission shows a blatant disrespect that the previous government had to the independence of these constitutional institutions. Madame la présidente, with regard to this…

Bill.

…Act, similarly back in 1999, the Labour Party had brought a new Bail Act and when the Act was passed, the idea was to make the granting of bail the rule and the objecting to bail, the exception. But again, little did we know that we would have a former Commissioner of Police who would usurp the powers of the DPP and refuse bail as explained by the Acting Attorney General, in cases where there were political opponents. This even resulted in an institutional clash between the Police, the Commissioner of Police, and the DPP’s Office, resulting in Court cases before our Courts of Law. This is why, Madam Speaker, we are having to intervene today once again in order to bring back trust in our Constitution, in our institutions that have constitutional status, by

97 defining with clarity the powers of the Commissioner of Police and the powers of the DPP when it comes to bail applications. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you so much. Yes, hon. Junior Minister! (4.43 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Arts and Culture (Mrs V. Leu-Govind): Merci, Madame la présidente.

Try, Junior Minister! If I may, try and speak a bit about the Bill, please.

Okay sure, fine. Madame la présidente, comme les deux honorables ministres qui m’ont précédée, je ne suis ni avocate et je n’ai aucun bagage juridique. Je m’adresse à cet auguste Assemblée sur le Bail (Amendment) Bill en étant qu’une citoyenne concernée et engagée avec ce présent gouvernement pour promouvoir l’espace démocratique dans le respect de la Constitution et de notre Etat de droit. Madame la présidente, je constate que l’honorable Adrien Duval du PMSD et l’honorable leader de l’opposition…

(Interruptions)

…ne se sont pas engagés à prendre la parole sur cet important projet de loi. Je comprends que le MSM ne participe pas, car durant leur parcours de ces dix dernières années, ils ont torpillé le bureau du DPP. Mais, l’honorable Adrien Duval et le PMSD ne participent pas ; c’est la preuve de ce qu’est devenu, et de ce qui reste du PMSD en termes de respect et d’importance accordée au mot ‘démocratie’, et du bureau du DPP. Madame la présidente, notre pays a traversé une grave crise institutionnelle. Nos institutions étaient gangrénées, pourries par le gouvernement MSM sans scrupules, avec la complicité d’un commissaire de police corrompu qui a abusé de ses pouvoirs pour des fins politiques. Ce commissaire n’était rien d’autre qu’une marionnette entre les mains du couple Jugnauth, dont la toxicité a empoisonné nos institutions.

98 Madame la présidente, dans cette force policière, la compétence, l’expérience, n’étaient plus critères de promotion. Ce qu’il fallait, tout simplement, participer dans des cover-up ou simplement une simple application de gel. C’est écœurant…

(Interruptions)

…dégradant, et tout simplement honteux, Madame la présidente !

(Interruptions)

La police qui sensée nous protéger, était devenue un motif de peur ; poursuites fabriquées, planting, arrestations sélectives, abus du recours aux charges provisoires, un climat d’oppression s’est installé, et nous en avons été profondément choqués d’apprendre qu’il existait dans nos rangs des policiers tortionnaires, Madame la présidente. Oui, tortionnaires ! Ceux qui ont torturé, humilié des prisonniers en utilisant des tasers sur leur parties intimes. Ce sont des actes inhumains et j’espère sincèrement qu’ils paieront très bientôt pour leurs crimes, Madame la présidente. Notre pays était devenu un véritable état policier, au service d’une police politique dirigée par le MSM. Madame la présidente, dans tout cela, notre seul rempart était et reste le judiciaire. Heureusement, deux femmes magistrates ont su redonner espoir à notre système judiciaire. Face aux pressions politiques, elles ont tenu bon. Avec conviction, je parle-là des cas Kistnen et de Bruneau Laurette. Madam Speaker, we must also reflect on the disgraceful and unprecedented attack on judicial independence made by the former Prime Minister, who had the audacity to call a Court Ruling “enn zizman bankal”. This shocking statement exposed the MSM’s utter disregard for the judiciary. It is disgraceful coming from a so-called lawyer. Today, in stark contrast, the current Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have given a lesson in governance by not interfering in his case when he was arrested by the FCC, even when the public wanted to see him behind the bars. Madame la présidente, regardons dans le rétroviseur. Le MSM a toujours voulu contrôler le DPP. Souvenons-nous de la fameuse Prosecution Commission en 2016 qui a mené à la démission du PMSD, grâce à des experts en droit qui ont su éclairer son leader sur les dangers de cette loi. Je tiens à remercier chaleureusement l’un d’entre eux qui, bien en n’étant même pas membre du PMSD, a agi par conviction profonde pour la démocratie et l’indépendance judiciaire, c’est l’honorable Khushal Lobine.

99 Madame la présidente, je saisi cette occasion pour saluer l’honorable Adrien Duval qui fut le premier à démissionner à cause de cette dérive. Mais, hélas, quelques années plus tard, il a oublié son combat et s’est précipité, aveuglé par le pouvoir ou peut-être l’argent, pour aller s’asseoir sur la chaise du ‘Loudspeaker’. Le pauvre, lui-même ne savait pas qu’il a été démis de ses fonctions par le Premier ministre. ‘Putting my son first’, tel a toujours été la devise du leader du PMSD –c’est pour cela qu’il est le seul à avoir échapper à la colère populaire – en sacrifiant des piliers comme Aurore Perraud, qui a tant travaillé dans la circonscription numéro 4, et bien d’autres compagnons, jetés comme des pions. Comme on dit en créole, dan karo kann ! Je suis fière d’avoir était la première à quitter ce parti et fière aussi de l’honorable Richard Duval et de l’honorable Khushal Lobine qui ont, eux aussi, quitté ce navire pour fonder ensemble avec d’autres amis les Nouveaux Démocrates, un parti d’avenir. Madame la présidente, je félicite notre Attorney General. Depuis sa nomination, il n’a pas eu un jour de répit. Il a travaillé sans relâche sur plusieurs amendements pour restaurer la démocratie et redonner son indépendance au judiciaire et au DPP. Je sais qu’il n’a pas eu le luxe de déguster du sanglier ou de chiper un Blue au Stag Party comme son prédécesseur. Madam Speaker, I would like to express my strong support to the Bail (Amendment) Bill, a crucial legislative reform brought forward by this Government. This Bill ensures that the DPP alone has the final say on the prosecution matters, free from any interference. It removes the Commissioner of Police’s abilities to independently object to bail, making it crystal clear that only the DPP can challenge a bail decision before the Supreme Court. With this Bill, we send an unmistakable message. Never again will a government be able to manipulate the DPP’s Office for political ends. Never again will the Police be turned into a political weapon. Never again will the Judiciary be undermined for the sake of power. Madame la présidente, notre pays a traversé une grave crise institutionnelle. Nos institutions étaient engrainées, comme je vous l’ai dit, mais grâce à cet amendement, aujourd’hui, on va retrouver la liberté et l’indépendance de notre système judiciaire. To conclude, Madam Speaker, I would like to quote George Herbert – “Where there is a will, there is a way.”

100 Madam Speaker, today, in this House, we have the will, we have the competence, we have the motivation, the quality and the quantity and under the guidance of our Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, we are on the right path to make Mauritius be Mauritius again. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Junior Minister, thank you. I would like you to be careful and perhaps withdraw one part of your speech because you were talking about hon. A. Duval who, maybe, is not present, but he is a Member of the House, and I don’t think you are allowed to impute motives when you said that part. You know what I mean, that ‘maybe he did it for money’. That would be imputing motives. We don’t want to open a debate later on this issue. If you could, please, kindly withdraw that part.

I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.

Thank you! Yes, now, I have Mr Baboolall. (4.53 p.m.) Mr C. Baboolall (First Member for Montagne Blanche & GRSE): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Bail (Amendment) Bill is indeed clarifying the powers of the DPP and the Commissioner of Police. Madam Speaker, the Republic of Mauritius is a democratic State and the Constitution is the supreme law. The Constitution guarantees our fundamental rights and freedom of the individual. Section 5 of the Constitution embodies the protection of right and personal liberty. Madam Speaker, the right to liberty of an individual is enshrined in section 5 (3) of our Constitution and is reflected in section 3 of the Bail Act 1999, which provides that – “Notwithstanding any other enactment and subject to section 4, every defendant or detainee shall be entitled to be released on bail.”

101 In considering any application, the learned Magistrate bears in mind the fundamental conditional principle that freedom is the rule and detention on account of reasonable suspicion the exception, and must see to it that bail is not being withheld as a form of punishment. Madam Speaker, on the other hand, the Director of Public Prosecutions derives his powers under section 72 of the Constitution. Section 72(6) states that – “In the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by this section, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.” Whereas the Commissioner of Police, powers are vested in him by section 71 of the Constitution. Madam Speaker, this Bill presented by the hon. Attorney General is a clear sign that the liberty of the people that they voted for on 10 November 2024, will always be respected and this Government is doing its best to restore democracy. Madam Speaker, the previous government was a fake one. We had a fake Prime Minister, a fake Speaker and not forgetting, the fake Commissioner of Police, where powers were abused upon the citizens of this country. People were scared because the ‘Kitchen’ could strike at any time with a ‘Striking Team’. And even when the Judiciary was protecting the rights of the citizens as per the Constitution and the laws of this land, all kind of loopholes were circumvented to oppress people and control the liberty. One of them is the Bail Act, as rightly pointed out by the hon. Acting Attorney General at section 4 (b) of the Bail Act. Previously, this was not the case, this law has been here since long but all has started when the Commissioner of Police wanted to control everything. Madam Speaker, the case of Bruno Laurette is a clear-cut case to explain how the CP wanted to control everything. Hon. Minister Shakeel Mohamed, who is presenting the Bill today, was his barrister, he stated at that time: ‘Le Commissaire de police n’a pas le locus standi selon la loi pour entrer une telle action.’ That was at that time. Madam Speaker, the Commissioner of Police wanted to attempt a kind of constitutional revolution that would make the CP the one who would hold the power of release or detain a suspect alone. The case of Akil Bissessur – this explains why

102 this Bill is necessary. What happened in the case of Akil Bissessur? He was arrested by the Striking Team; he was presented before a court of law; his counsel put a motion for his release on bail and the Commissioner of Police asked for the DPP to be present on that day, and when the State Law Officer was present on that day, he stated that there was no objection for his release. What happened? On that day, Madam Speaker, the fake government and the fake Commissioner of Police were not happy. They had to do everything in their capacity to prevent this release. Everything was done to please Pinokio because he nominated the CP. Madam Speaker, this has never happened before any court of law in Mauritius, and neither did the Police prosecutor say a word. But what happened? The Superintendent of Police, Mr Gungadin, made the following statement on the floor of the court, he stated – “The CP is abroad in France. Prior from leaving the country on Saturday, he was formally instructed to attend court today in virtue of the constitutional powers vested upon him. He has instructed me that if the DPP goes against the Police instruction, then it is for the police to object and to mention his stand that, if need be, the Office of the CP will solicit help from outside of the DPP’s Office.” He states that this is interference of the DPP. Guess on whom the Commissioner of Police placed his bet in this case? It is none other than Mr Yerrigadoo who knows how to play, and Mrs Sonah-Ori, the former Prime Minister’s Attorney, looting again the tax payers’ money from the backdoor. The Commissioner of Police felt aggrieved in the manner in which the DPP appeared to have usurped the CP’s power, which was never his power in any way! He filed six grounds before the Supreme Court. All these grounds failed, Madam Speaker, on the preliminary objections raised by the Counsel for Mr Akil Bissessur. In relation to the Supreme Court, Madam Speaker, in relation to the case of Rangasamy v the DPP, the full bench of the Supreme Court considered the jurisdictional basis to review any decision of any subordinate court in criminal matters. It is trite law that a review envisaged under section 4(4) (a) of the Bail Act and section 82(1) of the Constitution entails a rehearing of the Supreme Court. Even though in the case of Mr Bissessur, there was no ruling. Still, the Machiavellian team tried to challenge the learned magistrate and the DPP. Madam Speaker, the fake CP was willing to improvise a disguise way of challenging the constitutional powers that the DPP holds and wanted to hold the power to arrest, release

103 and detain a suspect. Now, the Bail (Amendment) Bill will amend the Bail Act so as to delimit the respective powers of the DPP and those of the Commissioner of Police. Madam Speaker, the DPP will be the only one to decide whether to object or not for the release of a detainee and also, the power to apply to the Supreme Court for an order setting aside the determination of the magistrate to the release of the detainee on bail. This Government will make sure that the rights and freedom of the citizens are respected, the rule of law prevails, and where the DPP will continue to enjoy the constitutional powers entrusted to him as guaranteed by the Constitution. I support the Bill presented to the House, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, Ms J. Bérenger!

(Interruptions)

No? You want a break? Okay! I am so sorry. I am in the hands of everybody. I think everybody wants to go for tea. Let us break. Vous ne perdez rien à attendre votre tour. At 5.02 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.44 p.m. with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Yes, can we carry on, Ms J. Bérenger? The Junior Minister of Environment, Solid Waste Management and Climate Change (Ms J. Bérenger): Madam Speaker, les mo komanse par dir ki mo akeyir pozitivman sa proze lalwa-la Bail (Amendment) Bill. Gouvernman ena rezon pou vinn klarifie rol direkter pourswit piblik (DPP) ek rol lapolis konsernan kosion. Li enn reform ki neseser…

Do not go too long in Kreol. You know I am in favour, but according to the Standing Orders, we have to use English and French. I am not stopping you for good. I do appreciate you are using Kreol, but we are not, strictly speaking, allowed to use Kreol.

Madame la présidente, je comprends les contraintes et je suis disposée à donner une copie de mon discours au Hansard Unit s’il le faut.

Non, non ! Je ne peux pas vous laisser parler et dire votre discours en entier en Kreol pour le moment. Ça va venir.

104

Madame la présidente, c’est tant mieux si l’on veut adapter la technologie et les compétences, si l’on veut consacrer le Kreol Morisien dans nos lois. Mais comme je l’ai expliqué la dernière fois, rien ne nous empêche aujourd’hui de donner une lecture plus démocratique à notre constitution dès maintenant, sans attendre la création des comités.

Je ne peux pas être d’accord avec vous !

Je respecte votre décision, mais dans ces conditions, je n’ai…

Non, mais je tiens compte de ce que vous dites. Je tiens compte.

Dans ces conditions, je n’ai pas d’autre choix, Madame la présidente. Mon discours sera, comme le Kreol Morisien, aujourd’hui, réduit au silence.

Too bad! Hon. M. Seeburn! (5.48 p.m.) Mr M. Seeburn (Second Member for Vieux Grand Port & Rose Belle): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, let me first thank the hon. Attorney General for working relentlessly and coming forward with this amendment to the Bail Act that will bring certainty to this area of the law. This Government is leading the fight to build a fairer and more equitable justice system. The previous government has aimed to circumvent the powers of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions when they allowed the Commissioner of Police to challenge the constitutional powers of the DPP, something that never happened before. Madam Speaker, the amendment to the Bail Act is to consolidate and restore the powers of the DPP that was originally vested with. Our Prime Minister, Dr. Navin Ramgoolam rightly said that we are at a defining moment in the history of our country, moving towards a total reconstruction of our nation and foster a system with an inclusive society where unity and justice will prevail. Madam Speaker, the existing conflict between the Commissioner of Police and the Office of the DPP, our fundamental right of liberty guaranteed under the Constitution, is at stake. As we know, the rationale behind the Bail Act is to ensure that liberty is the rule and

105 deprivation of liberty on the grounds of objection is merely an exception. Time and again, this has been emphasised by the courts of law in Mauritius and by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where its decision is grounded in our Constitution, being the final quote of appeal. Madam Speaker, it is section 72 of the Constitution that establishes and sets out the powers of the DPP where the DPP has the power to institute and undertake all criminal proceedings before a court of law. The DPP is further empowered to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by another person or to discontinue any such proceedings at any stage before judgment is delivered. Madam Speaker, section 10(6) of our Constitution secures a constitutional guarantee of the independence of the DPP to exercise its powers free from the direction, no control of any other person. This further enriches the principles of separation of powers embodied in our Constitution. The integrity of the judicial process with the powers of the DPP would be compromised, should the Police be allowed to object bail applications without the DPP’s consent. Madam Speaker, the Commissioner of Police already has a huge responsibility for overseeing its operations and ensuring the effective enforcement of laws that are implemented for the safety and security of the community. They must further demonstrate that they are applying the law fairly and operate with transparency. Madam Speaker, we recently felt the troubling times the country went through, with the disturbing turn of conflict between the Office of the DPP and that of the Commissioner of Police, who opposed the decision of the DPP who decided not to challenge the ruling of the Senior Magistrate at the Moka District Court in the case of one Mr B. L. who was granted bail, and again, in another case of lawyer Mr A. B. where the Office of the DPP stood up, not to object to his bail application. This confrontation between the important organs of the State became public when we saw the head of a constitutional post, being the Commissioner of Police, who came out publicly against another head of a constitutional post, thus, putting in serious doubt its legal judgment. Madam Speaker, I am sure that when the father of our nation, late Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, who campaigned for our independence 57 years back and negotiated and

106 approved the Constitution that time, the prominent question in his mind would have been to ensure that a proper set of checks and balances are upheld so that our young generation, and the people of Mauritius do not feel threaten by a single police force. Those checks and balances were indeed specified in our Constitution at that time to ensure that the constitutional powers are granted to the DPP in all matters of prosecution. Madam Speaker, to preserve the integrity of our institution, it is not a good practice for the Commissioner of Police to initiate private prosecution and to bypass the constitutional prerogatives of the DPP in prosecution matters when in fact both institutions were intended to collaborate and avoid conflict to meet the end of justice in our democratic society. Madam Speaker, it is highly essential to bring clarity and delimit the respective powers of the DPP and those of the Commissioner of Police with regards to a defendant or detainee who has been provisionally charged and is awaiting on bail. Both the police and the office of the DPP are meant to be highly trusted important institutions of our democratic society where they must work together, play their independent roles and implement their powers for good governance and for proper administration of justice, and cannot have any conflict whatsoever as they carry hopes and expectations of the people for peace and justice. Madam Speaker, the public has entrusted this Government to restore the independence of the public institutions and further, to foster ethics and integrity in all walks of life, to enhance our fundamental rights and for the DPP to prosecute offenders in the name and on behalf of the State. Under the Bail Act, it is the police who has the power to object for the release of a defendant or detainee when a provisional charge is raised. The grants of objection raised by the police must be carefully analysed and based on the nature of the evidence gathered to ensure that he does not violate the rights of that person established in our Constitution. The office of the DPP has the expertise and is fully equipped with trained and experienced lawyers in the field to analyse the nature of the evidence gathered by the police in each and every case, and to conclude whether or not an objection for release of a defendant or detainee should be raised. Each and every case, must be based on its evidence and on its own merits and own facts. Madam Speaker, the new section 3B introduced in this Bill under section 4 of the Act, rightly makes it clear that where the Commissioner of Police has the intention to object for

107 the release of a defendant or detainee provisionally charged, he shall seek the advice of the DPP under the new law and the decision to object shall rest solely on the DPP. Madam Speaker, where the court has heard an application for the release on bail after analysing the grounds of objection raised by the police where the court concludes and orders that the release on bail of a defendant or detainee, in such circumstances, section 6 of the Bill introduces a new section 4A that is to be inserted in the principal Bail Act. And, again, makes it very clear that the power to apply to the Supreme Court for an order to set aside the decision of the magistrate to release the defendant or detainee on bail shall rest, again, solely on the DPP. Madam Speaker, to conclude, as our Prime Minister says, we have a difficult task ahead but with this team holding experience, competence and determination; we are confident that we shall overcome all the difficulties in building our nation and to ensure that a proper administration of justice is established to meet the ideals of the rule of law. Madam Speaker, I welcome and support the amendments to the Bail Act introduced by the hon. Acting Attorney General as these clarify the powers and integrity of both institutions. I thank you all for your attention and commitment for a better Mauritius. ANNOUNCEMENT 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.

108 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

109 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

110 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

111 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

112 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 –

113 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

114 (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.

115 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!

116 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. ADJOURNMENT

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that this Assembly do now adjourn to Tuesday 08 April 2025 at 11.30 a.m. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

The House stands adjourned. At 6.21 p.m., the Assembly was, on its rising, adjourned to Tuesday 08 April 2025 at 11.30 a.m. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RODRIGUES – PORT MATHURIN PORT MASTER PLAN