Prosecution Commission: Paul Chong Leung: “The PMSD had the right reaction”

Paul Chong Leung has been a lawyer since the past 45 years. He served as Magistrate, Attorney General and was a Member of the Legislative Assembly as Minister of Justice. News on Sunday asked him a few questions regarding the proposal for the introduction of a Prosecution Commission which led to the government’s split with the Parti Mauricien Social-Democrate (PMSD) walking out. This legislation would have rendered the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) answerable to a Prosecution Commission which would have comprised of three former judges.

What is your reading of the Constitution (Amendment) BIll as proposed by the Prime Minister before the National Assembly?

Within the limited time afforded for the exercise to be done, there will not be an in-depth and exhaustive analysis of this piece of legislation, which if and when adopted, would have far reaching consequences to the life of the population and the practice of democracy and rule of law in Mauritius. The government is showing what has been aptly described by the Bar Council as an indecent haste to rush it through Parliament, come what may. Within a matter of three days, the Lepep government has been badly shaken since one of its main components has slammed the door.

This was to be expected as the leader of that component, is none other than the son of Sir Gaetan Duval – one of the most illustrious defenders of democracy, promoter of guarantees or of other devices for the protection of citizens against any despotic assaults on personal freedom or against any police malpractices. When the Prosecution Commission came on the table and put on the agenda of the National Assembly for the sitting of the 20th December, Sir Gaetan Duval must has turned around in his grave. This bill is essentially and mainly to put the DPP in straight jacket. Nothing more nothing less. Fortunately, the PMSD has had the right reaction and decided not to have anything to do with that bill. 

What are the reasons for the introduction of that bill? 

They are in the provisions contained therein and in the memorandum accompanying it. They require the DPP to give reasons for instituting a case in court or not to do so, to say things rather simply. If the DPP decisions were generally perverse, bad, discriminatory and so on. 

But what about the cases against Navin Ramgoolam?

What are the facts about them? One after the other, when Counsel from the DPP’s office have gone to court, they have given valid reasons for striking out these cases. Given the number of cases that are to be considered by that office, it would quickly grind to a halt, as you can be sure in any given case there is usually a winner and a loser and the loser more often than not is not satisfied about the outcome of his case.

Is there any need for this Commission? Absolutely not for at least two reasons. First any aggrieved party can lodge a private prosecution. The first time this was used in the country was when SGD lodged one against a former minister of the PMSD in the 1970’s. The only problem is that the DPP should not systematically intervene and stop such private prosecution from going ahead as it has been the case so far. It should be done only in a fit and proper case.

The second reason is that after following a landmark case at the JCPC, the decision of the DPP’s office can thereafter be amenable to judicial review by the local Supreme Court. It is thus clear that any fear which formerly existed as to a perverse decision no longer exists.

“ In the face of such catastrophic balance sheet, with every electoral promises but one broken, pledges of good governance trodden down in the dirt of abject practices, a meagre salary compensation of Rs 200 per month to the low paid workers, when the fat cats were busy gulping caviar and drinking champagne, there was only one way out. The Prosecution Commission is only part of the reasons for the furore which has been unleashed."

In relation to that very point, the main proponents of the Bill, as perceived by the pubic, is that the main reason for it is that the DPP has been biased, partial, perverse etc. in the decision to reject so far 9 out of the 10 cases against Navin Ramgoolam. 

This is plain bad faith from people who should know and do know better as some of them know how the DPP’s office functions for having been posted there. That office has some 40 to 50 fully qualified barristers. The country is administratively divided in ten districts. A case coming from any of the 10 districts is directed to the officers responsible for that district. The case is dealt with at different levels depending on the seriousness of the offence or crime or gravity and it is only at the end of the process that it goes to the DPP. This is what is known about how matters stand there. In effect, a decision from the DPP’s office is not a personal decision of his but in a certain way a collegial decision.

Have these people come across any case where the DPP has taken a personal decision against the advice of the other officers of the office, at least in any of the 9 cases struck out by some different magistrates. Any Mauritian citizen having an interest as a taxpayer or otherwise (locus standi) in any of the so far 9 cases is free to go to the Supreme Court to ask for a judicial review or lodge a private prosecution.

Can you explain the furore created by the Bill on the eve of its presentation in Parliament? 

It does not require a lot of imagination to explain that furore. The older generation by their upbringing and now blessed with a long life experience is different from the young ones of today who are more quick to react. The actions of some members of the police force lately, ready to dutifully kowtow to “orders from above” and in doing so hoping to get promotion, favours, any ‘bout’, or to simply score some points, have incensed the public in general. The arrogance shown by some big mouth among the rank of ministers, the morbid wish to K.O. former allies and or get them down at any cost, by hook or by crook, did not help either. The reaction took no time to come and with force.

When this arrogance is accompanied by an urge to grab whatever comes their way, whether it is a juicy government contract, comfortable government post, enjoyable travel abroad with indecent per diem running in thousands of rupees, not only for themselves but for other members of the family, and with silly comments such as government is government and government governs, all hell was bound to get loose at any time. It has not taken long time to come. 

The time for the public to pay for the complete disregard by the top brass of the costs involved in the dilapidation of public funds by engaging in the BAI/Bramer Bank /Apollo Bramwell scandal, the Heritage City fiasco, Air Mauritius Megh Pillay’s eviction to mention only but a few of the long list accumulated over the past two years and the day of reckoning is not far and will be more dramatic for them to face. The bill will run in tens of billion of rupees.

The one and only one who was in a position to bring some sense in ‘La cour du roi Petaud’ was Xavier-Luc Duval. As a seasoned politician he has realised that the Bill was destined to go the bottom of the ocean.

In the face of such catastrophic balance sheet, with every electoral promises but one broken, pledges of good governance trodden down in the dirt of abject practices, a meagre salary compensation of Rs 200 per month to the low paid workers, when the fat cats were busy gulping caviar and drinking champagne, there was only one way out. The Prosecution Commission is only part of the reasons for the furore which has been unleashed.