Live News

Sextos  : «L'enquête a révélé un Prima Facie Case d'outrage à l'Assemblée nationale contre Tarolah...», indique le bureau du DPP

Le bureau du Directeur des Poursuites Publiques (DPP) estime qu’il y a un « prima facie case » d’outrage à l’Assemblée nationale contre le député du MSM Kalyan Tarolah dans l’affaire des sextos. Toutefois, il affirme qu’il revient à la Speaker de décider s’il y a matière de référer l’affaire au DPP.

Publicité

C’est ce qui ressort d’un communiqué émis par le bureau du DPP ce vendredi 30 novembre.

«Our Office takes the view that the sending of obscene and indecent messages and photos on a mobile phone while being in the House at a time when it was in session amounts to misbehaving in a disrespectful, indecorous and improper manner.  Those acts do bring serious disrepute to our august National Assembly and shows a total lack of decorum and respect by the Honourable Member concerned.

Therefore our Office is of the considered view that a prima facie case of contempt of the National Assembly has been disclosed by the enquiry. Unfortunately, however, as matters stand, a prosecution for such a contempt cannot be advised by us for procedural reasons.

Section 7 of the same Act provides that no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by the Director of Public Prosecutions and in accordance with the procedure laid down in that behalf in the Standing Orders of the Assembly.

According to Standing Order 74 “offences provided for in the National Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act shall be dealt with in the following manner …” and there follows a very long and specific procedure that needs to be followed before a Member loses his parliamentary immunity and becomes amenable to prosecution.

Standing Order 74(1) provides that a privilege complaint must come from a member of the House and that “a Member who wishes to raise a privilege complaint shall give written notice of the matter to the Speaker on a sitting day as soon as reasonably practicable after the Member had notice of the alleged contempt or breach of privilege."

It is then up to the Speaker, and the Speaker alone, to decide whether the complaint does amount to a contempt of the Assembly and where she does, she will refer the matter to the DPP.  And where she does not find that the complaint discloses an offence under the National Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act then that is the end of the matter. (Standing Order 74(5))», peut-on lire dans le communiqué.

Il revient donc à la Speaker de l’Assemblée nationale de se prononcer sur cette affaire : 

«For the reasons set forth above, we have today advised the Commissioner of Police to bring to the attention of the Speaker the content of the present Communique for any action which she may deem fit»

L’affaire a éclaté en septembre 2017. Latchmee Devi Adheen, une habitante de Quatre-Sœurs, avait fait une déposition à la police, accusant le député Kalyan Tarolah (qui assumait aussi les fonctions de Parliamentary Private Secretary), de lui avoir envoyé des photos obscènes à travers WhatsApp.

Après avoir analysé les faits entourant cette affaire, le bureau du DPP a conclu qu’il ne peut y avoir de délit tombant sous l'article section 46 (ga) de l’ICTA dans cette affaire .

«Our Office therefore takes the view that although it can established that both Miss L.D.A and Honourable Tarolah did send to each other indecent and obscene messages, photos and videos via WhatsApp, they lacked the criminal intent necessary for the purpose of establishing an offence under section 46 (ga) of ICTA», explique le bureau du DPP.

Et d'ajouter : «Our Office takes this view basing itself on the relationship that existed between them, which can be culled from the numerous messages exchanged between them over a prolonged period of time, and the history of those messages show that they had repeatedly sent to each other obscene and indecent messages and photos over that time.  In such circumstances, it will be difficult to prove that when they sent those messages to each other they knew, or ought to have known, that the person receiving the messages would view them as obscene or indecent.  On the contrary, the evidence shows that they were both willing participants and recipients of those obscene and indecent messages».

>> Retrouvez le communiqué du Bureau du DPP

  • LDMG

 

Notre service WhatsApp. Vous êtes témoins d`un événement d`actualité ou d`une scène insolite? Envoyez-nous vos photos ou vidéos sur le 5 259 82 00 !