le jugement de la cour intermédiaire contre pravind jugnauth
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
1/33
ICAC v P.K Jugnauth
2015 INT 210
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS(Criminal Division)
In the matter of : C!No! "#$%"&'
Ine*enent Commission A+ainst Corr,*tion -.ICAC/0
v
1ravin 2,mar 3U4NAUTH3 U D 4 M E N T
Accused stands charged for having on 23 December 2010 “…whilst being
then a public official whose relative had a personal interest in a decision which a
public body had to take …. took part in the proceedings of that public body
relating to such decision …” in breach of section 13(2) &(3) Prevention of
Corrution Act ! hereinafter referred to as “P"CA# or “the Act#$ as amended b%
section (b) of Act 'o1200*
After a +ea in bar, Accused +eaded Not 4,ilt5 and -as assisted at .ria+
stage b% /rChett% C, /ru+bu+, /r Da-reea-oo and /samdharr%
.he Prosecution -as +ed b% /r oburdhun -ho aeared together -ith
/r oochand
As er Particu+ars of information, Accused had been acting in his caacit%
as 4ice Prime /inister and /inister of the /inistr% of 5inance and 6conomic
Deve+oment ! hereinafter referred to as “MOFED” & /"56D is a+so referred to
as /inistr% of 5inance and 6conomic 6mo-erment !“MOFEE” $ $ -hen he “ ….approved the re allocation of funds aounting to !s."##$%&"$'&&.( to pay Med(
point )td * in which copany +ccused,s sister$ Mrs Malhotra held -$/-' shares
out of '-$-'.”
C'o 2*71
Page ' of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
2/33
8e have du+% considered a++ the evidence on record as -e++ as the -ritten
and ora+ submissions from both arties together -ith the authorities submitted
9efore the Court embar:s on consideration of the evidence on record, the
mooted issue of -hether there has been an ,nfair en7,ir5 in this matter -i++ be
first considered .his ;uestion needs to be addressed at the outset since there
has been substantive submissions from the Defence on this issue as -e++ as in
the +ight of the fo++o-ing e
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
3/33
5he )earned ;udge in the case of Velvindron also cited the following cases
which deal with the issue of a stay of proceedings on the ground of abuse of
process *
45n 6.7.7. v. )ussain, The Times #une $ $%%$ the 4ourt reiterated the
e6ceptional nature of an order staying proceedings on the ground of abuse of process and stated that such an order should never be ade where there were
other ways of achieving a fair hearing of the case$ still less where there was no
evidence of pre1udice to the defendant.
Further$ in deterining abuse of process$ the 4ourt in (. v. 6erby Crown
Court e8 p. 9rooks [$%-2 -! Cr. /pp. (. 7. $:& $ after 8uoting with approval
the stateent of )ord Diplock in Sang [$%1% /0( $ p. $"!& pointed out
that 4the ultimate ob;ective of this discretionary power is to ensure that
there should be a fair trial according to law, which involves fairness both tothe defendant and the prosecution.”
• Has the En7,ir5 9een hanle so Unfairl5 that No Fair Trial is
*ossi9le<
A! De8ision to arrest
"ne of the submissions of the Defence that the decision to arrest the
Accused is f+a-ed and in breach of CP=s Circu+ar 'o2>2003 ! hereinafter
referred to as “ 4
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
4/33
scrupulously observe the #udges (ule. ?nder no circumstances should
they effect any arrest unless same has been ordered by the Commissioner
of 7olice after perusal of the relevant case file and assessment of the
evidence on hand
.he Defence=s contention is to the effect that it -as not the Commissioner
of Po+ice ! “CP# $ -ho ordered the arrest but rather it -as ACP 4udama+a% -ho
did so .he Defence a+so contends that since the Accused had not %et given his
defence statement on 22@0>@11 at 0>00 hrs, the CP cou+d not have given a
roer decision since he did not have Accused=s statement to assess the
evidence on hand
Bo-ever, it is c+ear from the defence=s -ritten submission 9page #- of the
written subissions fro the Defence:) that AP Coret arrested the Accused
5urthermore, the Defence did not disute that D? hoora -rote a reort to the
CP on 21@0>@11, -hich he remitted to AP Coret to conve% to CP 9page ## of
the written subissions fro the Defence:. .his is a+so borne out from the
evidence of D? hoora 9vide proceedings of ">(&>("?$ page '-:. .he +atter
ho-ever added that the reort -as addressed to the CP re;uesting assistance to
arrest the Accused Be neverthe+ess admitted having received a
corresondence from ACP 4udama+a% on 22@0>@11 at about 0>00 hrs
authoriing the arrest of Accused D? hoorah a+so stated that ACP 4udama+a%
signed the said +etter but cou+d not sa% -ho too: the decision As regards the
fact that the authoriation to arrest the Accused -as given b% the CP prior to the
Accused having even given a defence statement, D? hoora stated that -hi+st
c+earance ma% have been obtained from CP, the decision to arrest -ou+d sti++ be
ta:en b% the most senior o+ice officer at ?CAC
As regards the vie- ta:en b% the Defence in resect of the decision for
Arrest ta:en b% a erson other than the CP, the Court finds that @
(a) +4< @uddaalay held the post of +ssistant 4oissioner of
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
5/33
(b) there is nothing to say that +4< @uddaalay did not consult the 4< before
reaching such decision$
(c) there is nothing on record to show that that +4< @udaalay$ subordinate
of 4(&>("?: that AP Coret -as the most senior o+ice
officer osted to ?CAC
.hus, -hether one -ou+d measure from the standards of the CP=s Circu+ar
9Doc += refers: or the genera+ o-ers of arrest of a o+ice officer seconded to?CAC as recognied b% our Courts, the same resu+t is reached, name+%, that
there is nothing -hich affects or taints the +ega+it% of such an arrest
C'o 2*71
Page $ of 66
http://supremecourt.govmu.org/scourt/doc/showDoc.do?dk=2003%20SCJ%20273&dt=Jhttp://supremecourt.govmu.org/scourt/doc/showDoc.do?dk=2003%20SCJ%20273&dt=Jhttp://supremecourt.govmu.org/scourt/doc/showDoc.do?dk=2003%20SCJ%20273&dt=Jhttp://supremecourt.govmu.org/scourt/doc/showDoc.do?dk=2003%20SCJ%20273&dt=J
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
6/33
.rue, there might be some ;uestion mar:s raised as to -hether it -as the
CP himse+f -ho gave the consent or -hether such consent -as given after due
assessment of a++ the evidence on record 9ut this -ou+d not be sufficient to cast
an% shado- of i++ega+it% on the arrest
8e here refer to *ara+ra*h = of the C1>s Cir8,lar -hich reads as
fo++o-s@
…
%. 7olice officers posted to 5C/C are hereby reminded that any departure
from the above directives will entail severe disciplinary actions.
.hus shou+d there have been an% non@com+iance to the said Circu+ar, this
-ou+d on+% resu+t in disciplinary action and -ou+d not in itse+f render such arrest
i++ega+
8e therefore find that there is nothing un+a-fu+ in resect of the decision to
arrest the Accused b% AP Coret
?! Statements not re8ore from the *ersons mentione in
A88,se>s efen8e statement
.he Court is in agreement -ith the Prosecution=s argument that the
en;uir% -as not based on Disc+osure of ?nterest at Cabinet +eve+ and recording of
such statements from the ersons mentioned in Accused=s defence statement
-ou+d have been of no conse;uence in as much as the% had no direct or indirectbearing to the resent charge
C'o 2*71
Page # of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
7/33
.he issue is not one of conf+ict of interest arising in resect of the se+ection
of /edoint Etd as being the site for the 'ationa+ eriatric Bosita+ !“'B#$ as
decided b% the Cabinet .he decision -hich is the subFect matter before this
Court is the reallocation of funds as regards the payment to >edpoint Dtd
for the purchase of the land and building for the EF) pro;ect ?t cannot beemhasied enough that statements from the t-o -itnesses mentioned -ou+d
have served no usefu+ urose in vie- of the resent charge referred b% the
Prosecution against the Accused
C! .CA? "$&/
8hi+st the Court agrees that the e
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
8/33
as the material is not privileged or is not protected from disclosure on any
other ground.G
.hus, it is c+ear from the above e) Finan8ial Instr,8tions
(@FI>) "&& "&&=
.he Prosecution does not disute that the 5// is outdated or that it is
com+emented b% 5? 200G & 200>
.he Prosecution seems neverthe+ess to favour the testimon% of /rhugroo (-ho re+ies on the outdated 5//) to sa% that /"56D arova+ -as
re;uired in order to roceed -ith e A++ocation 6 to sa% that /inistr% of Bea+th & Iua+it% Eife !“/"BIE#$ cou+d have
roceeded -ith the re a++ocation transaction -ithout /"56D=s arova+
8e note that /r ee-ooth refers to the 5? 200> in his statement given to
the ?CAC so that it cannot be said that the DPP -as una-are of same, a++ the
C'o 2*71
Page of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
9/33
more so since a++ these documents are free+% avai+ab+e from the /"56D -ebsite
as stated b% /r Hi, 9udget Director at /"56D
9e that as it ma%, in the +ight of an ana+%sis of the evidence adduced andthe resent charge (see be+o-), it is obvious that these documents as -e++ as the
asect as to -hether arova+ of /"56D -as re;uired is definite+% of +itt+e or no
re+evance to the resent charge
E! The Char+e
.he rationa+e of the rinci+e of the “charge being put to an +ccused, is to
araise him of the case he has to meet in order to ut for-ard an aroriate
defence
.he imortance of this rocedure is fu++% e is based and on which the learned Magistrate relied to convict hi
was a part of a defence stateent which appellant had given in response to a
charge of possession of ?& packets of cannabis under section '&9":9f:9i:$ #"9":9i:
9>:$ #?9":$ #%9?:9a: and #- of the Dangerous Drugs +ct #" of >&&& as aended
by +ct >/ of >&&' 9“the +ct”:. 5here is no defence stateent for$ and indeed$ a
coplaint of giving false stateents in relation to the drug dealing offence$ in
breach of sections #>9":9a:9#: of the +ct was never put to hi.
"# 0t is our view$ therefore$ that the appellant did not have a fair hearing in the
circustances. 5he sae thing would apply to the charge under 4ount '. For the
sae reason$ we take the view that the conviction cannot stand
C'o 2*71
Page = of 66
http://supremecourt.govmu.org/scourt/doc/showDoc.do?dk=2013%20SCJ%20373&dt=Jhttp://supremecourt.govmu.org/scourt/doc/showDoc.do?dk=2013%20SCJ%20373&dt=J
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
10/33
…
The appellant had a right to know in the first place the details of the case
regarding the false statement. Eothing shows that it was ever put to him
that he would be charged for an offence of giving a false statement in
connection with a drug offence. Section $! '3 provides that every person
who is charged with a criminal offence ... shall be informed as soon as
reasonably practicable, in a language that he understands, and, in detail, of
the nature of the offence.G 5hat constitutional iperative has been breached in
this case and a conviction cannot be based on that core irreducible iniu of
fairness.
"% +s was stated by the alaya [$%:& /C ", ""1 by )ord Denning7
45f the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must
carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made
against him. )e must know what evidence has been given and what
statements have been made affecting himH and then he must be given a fair
opportunity to correct or contradict them.G
"- 5rials are conducted on the basis of the principle of natural 1ustice. 5here
are a nuber of strands to this. + party has a right to know the case against hiand the evidence on which it is based. 3e is entitled to have the opportunity to
respond to any such evidence and to any subissions ade by the other side.
5he other side ay not advance contentions or adduce evidence of which he is
kept in ignorance.
Bo-ever, the situation in the resent matter is c+ear+% distinguishab+e from
#hootoo 'supra3
8hi+st the charge might not have been stricto sensu forma++% ut to
Accused, the +atter cannot in fairness +ead that he or his +ega+ advisers -ere
una-are of the charge he had to meet
C'o 2*71
Page '& of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
11/33
?t is true that both D? hoora and C? A++ear conceded that the charge -as
not ut to the Accused -hi+st his defence statement -as being recorded 9ut
this does not ref+ect the rea+ icture .here is a need to +oo: at the chrono+og% of
events
Counse+ for Accused addressed a corresondence to ?CAC dated 12@0>@
2011 9Doc D refers: -herein amongst others, he made a re;uest to be
communicated -ith the charge to be ut against Accused ?t is a+so re+evant to
note that defence counse+ -as a+read% a-are that the en;uir% as regards his
c+ient -as in resect of /edoint Etd for the setting u of the 'B and this is
evident from the heading of his corresondence
?t is a+so of interest to note that on 12@0>@11 itse+f, the same Counse+ had
sent a corresondence to the ecretar% of the Cabinet 9Doc D refers:. .he
contents of this +etter is most re+evant to assess -hether the Accused -as a-are
of the charge against him or other-ise .he re+evant art of the said
corresondence reads as fo++o-s@
…
. >y client has instructed me to the effect that his defence rests entirely
on what took place at Cabinet meetings as regards the setting up of a
Eational Feriatric )ospital.
2. +or the purposes of his statement in his defence my client shall avail
himself of all legal provisions to secure protection of law and the #udges
(ules. >y client has instructed me that in giving his statement he shall be
under an obligation to disclose to 5C/C matters relating to what took place
at meetings of Cabinet.
C'o 2*71
Page '' of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
12/33
Defence counse+ then re;uested for communication of severa+ Cabinet
aers
.hus -hi+st there had been a re;uest from ?CAC as regards the nature ofthe charge against the Accused, simu+taneous+% on the same da%, defence
counse+ had a+read% started rearing Accused=s defence to the said charge b%
re;uesting from the ecretar% to Cabinet documents and arova+ to refer to
them
8hat fo++o-s is of even more interest .he ?CAC had re+ied to Defence
Counse+ on 17@0>@11 9Doc D? refers: -ho -as informed therein that the
statement -hich the Accused -as invited to give -as in resect of “ …. ore
specifically offences relating to conflict of interest andB or unlawful use of
office or position ….”.
.herefore, even before the Accused gave his first defence statement on
22@0>@11, he -as a+read% a-are of the charge to be ut against him and had
even a+read% started to reare his defence
.he Accused decided to ersona++% -rite his statement on 22@0>@11 9Doc
4 refers: after he -as du+% cautioned and e
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
13/33
Accused then -ent on to e
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
14/33
9% that time, it -as abundant+% c+ear that Accused -as fu++% a-are of the
charge against him since he had a+read% been rovisiona++% charged before the
District Court of Port Eouis so that he :ne- erfect+% -e++ -hich case he had to
meet
.he offence & articu+ars in the rovisiona+ charge before District Court
PEouis is simi+ar to the information before us K Doc +D refersA so that b% the
time -hen Accused -ent to ?CAC for the second defence statement, he cou+d not
+ead ignorance of the nature of charge and nature of case against him
5urthermore, the numerous corresondences from ?CAC as from
22012 ( see Doc 51, 52 etc) to 2G32013 addressed to Accused sho-
c+ear+% that ?CAC -as re;uesting the +atter to come and give his statement 8e
find ho-ever that Accused has ersistent+% de+a%ed and ostoned the giving of
his defence statement to ?CAC on grounds that he had not %et obtained the
documents he re;uested for and this desite having been before the ureme
Court for such a+ication and after having obtained communication of certain
documents
8e can on+% observe here ho- cou+d those documents re;uested for cou+d
have assisted Accused in his defence e6 facie the rovisiona+ charge -hich -as
a+read% :no-n to him .his is definite+% not a case -here Accused can aver that
his right to si+ence has been breached andor -here he can sa% that he -as
come++ed to give evidence under oath in order to ut for-ard his defence in
court
.hus, -hen a++ the above are considered, articu+ar+% the +etters as -e++ asboth statements to ?CAC, it is found that the Accused -as a-are that he -ou+d
be charged -ith an offence under section 13(2) P"CAL he -as in fact charged
-ith such an offence as er his o-n admission in his second statementL he -as
invited to comment on /inute (*) of the ed 5i+e on -hich the case against him
rested and he -as du+% sho-n /inutes (*) and (J) of the ed 5i+eC'o 2*71
Page ' of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
15/33
.herefore, it cannot be said other-ise that Accused -as fu++% a-are of
both the charge against him as -e++ as the nature of the case against him
Accused -as referred to the evidence on -hich the case against him -as based
and he stated that he had a defence to the said charge 8e find that a susect
-ou+d on+% be ab+e to avai+ himse+f of a defence once he is a-are of the charge
against him and the evidence against him
?t is c+ear that the resent Accused -as at a++ times fu++% a-are of the
charge against him, the nature of the offence as -e++ as evidence avai+ab+e
against him
?n fact, before ending on this asect of “alleged unfairness due to the
charge not being put to the +ccused” , -e need to high+ight the fact that the
Accused -as at a++ times treated so fair+% b% ?CAC that none other than the
Director of ?nvestigations at ?CAC, D? hoora ao+ogised to the Accused for
having to investigate the resent charge ?t -ou+d be hard to find an% fairer
treatment on the art of ?CAC vis a vis an Accused
?n the +ight of above, -e find that there is nothing on record to even
suggest the remotest inkling of unfair enquiry in this matter. Ie are of the
opinion that a fair trial according to law, which involves fairness both to the
defendant and the prosecution is fully ensured and there is no reason
whatsoever to e8ercise our discretion to stay the present proceedings.
8e sha++ no- consider the resent charge against the Accused in the +ight
of evidence adduced
ANABSIS OF THE CHAR4E IN THE BI4HT OF EIDENCE ADDUCED
.he Court -ishes to c+arif% the utter confusion arising from the s-eeing
manner in -hich the Prosecution conducted its case, the terms used and the
C'o 2*71
Page '$ of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
16/33
evidence that ensued ?ndeed, a +ot of, might -e sa% @ irre+evant @ evidence -as
adduced b% the Prosecution .his observation is even more Fustified -hen the
Court finds that the Prosecution=s case is based on an “Mncha++enged Admission
made b% Accused#
/ost of the evidence ushered in b% the Prosecution as regards arova+ of
re a++ocation of funds b% /inister/"56D, 5//, 5? 200G & 200>, Arova+ b%
/inister or not, Caita+ 9udget, ProFect 9ased 9udgeting, ProFect 4a+ue, 'B,
/edoint Etd is considered as irre+evant to the actua+ matter before the Court
.he Court furthermore notes the s+%, underhand insertion on the art of the
Prosecution of a ne- aggravating factorne- case as er its #th paragraph of
para #.'..> of its Critten 2ubissions -hich has abso+ute+% nothing to do -ith
the resent matter Desite observations made b% the Court during the course of
the roceedings -hen this issue -as raised name+%, that that this is an asectthat did not form art of the information and cou+d have been the subFect of
another rosecution under another section of P"CA, the Prosecution has
neverthe+ess strong+% and -rong+% ersisted in this vein and inc+uded same as
art of its 8itten ubmissions 'eed+ess to sa% that it has been disregarded b%
this Court
?n fact, the decision in lite as er the information and articu+ars rovided is
-hether the Accused Japproved the reallocation of funds amounting to
(s.$, 1!$, "!!. to pay >edpoint DtdK
.here has been am+e evidence adduced as regards @virement> -hich
according to the testimon% of /r Hi as -e++ as the 5? 200G & 200> roduced
(Docs @ @" refer ) is the technica+ term for the reallocation of funds from
one item of e8penditure to another item of e8penditure. .he fu++ definition of
N4irement= is given as er 5? 200G F0 Go." of >&&- and reroduced be+o-
“VirementG L
'a3 means a reallocation of funds within a >inistryM6epartment
'i3 from an item of e8penditure to another item of e8penditure
within a Sub7rogramme or 7rogrammeN or
C'o 2*71
Page '# of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
17/33
'ii3 from an item of e8penditure in respect of a Sub7rogramme or
7rogramme to another item of e8penditure in respect of another
Sub7rogramme or 7rogrammeN and
'b3 includes a reallocation of funds
'i3 from a >inistryM6epartment to another >inistryM6epartment in
respect of items of e8penditure relating to acquisition of assets
'08penditure Categories "$ and "3N and
'ii3 from 7rogramme %-% 4Contingencies and (eservesG.$
?n fact, this -as -hat /r ee-ooth -as referring to during the course of
his testimon% -hen he stated that the re(allocation of funds 9H@ireent,: ay be
effected without seeking the prior approval of MOFED. And this statement of fact
is consistent -ith the 5? 200G and 200> ho-ever subFect to certain conditionssecified therein
.he re@a++ocation of funds -hich is the subFect matter of the resent
information before this Court and in resect of -hich decision -as a++eged+%
ta:en b% the Accused is in re+ation to the so,r8e of f,ns from hi8h *a5ment
to Me*oint Bt o,l 9e effe8te!
.his is c+ear from /r ee-ooth himse+f -hen he gave the fo++o-ing
ans-ers at the end of his cross einistry of )ealth has been informed that it has
unused funds the correct procedure would have been that the >inistry of
)ealth itself does the reallocationP
/. Aes
O. /nd there was no need to refer the matter to the >inistry of +inanceP
/. Aes
O. Aou mean that yes there was no need to refer the matter to the >inistryof +inanceP
1 httmofgovmuorg6ng+ishPagesPresentation5inancia+@?nstruction@1as
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
18/33
/. Eo, 5 wish to point out one thing why we refer to the >inistry firstly
because it was L the funds were identified from the Dotto fund so thatKs
why we wrote to the >inistry of +inance to release funds.
.hus, it is seen that that because there -as initia++% another source of
funds from -hich the 'B ProFect -ou+d have been financed, name+% the NEotto
funds=, there -as therefore a need to re;uest the /"56D for the re+ease of
funds from the said NEotto 5und=
.his is the consistent understanding -hen the +etter dated 0>@0J@10 (Doc
I> refers: b% /rs /a%a BanoomanFee, then /inister of /"BIE is considered
?n fact, she addressed a ministeria+ corresondence to the Accused re;uesting
the +atter to re@a++ocate amount earmar:ed for her /inistr% under the NEotter%
5und= to the roFects as +isted at the Anne< and that the said re;uest -as as a
resu+t of meeting -ith /r Do-ar:asing enior Adviser 8hen the Anne< iserused, it is found that in fact s170 mi++ion had been earmar:ed from the
Eotter% cheme for the 'B ProFect
?t is a+so found that on 22@12@10, /r ee-ooth of /"BIE had addressed
a corresondence to the 5inancia+ ecretar% (attention /r C amchurn of
/"56D) so as to submit to the /"BIE a departental warrant for the sum of
s 1, J01,300@ to enab+e a%ment to be effected -ithin fisca+ %ear 2010 for
the ac;uisition of +and and bui+ding for the setting u of a 'B 9Doc E refers: ?t
is a+so re+evant to note that reference -as c+ear+% made to /edoint Bosita+
.hus, as at 22@12@10, there -as no reference to N4irement= but to
HDepartental Carrant, since origina++%, the 'B ProFect -ou+d have been
financed from the NEotter% 5und= ?t is here re+evant to note that in fact -hen
reference is made to NEotter% funds=, it actua++% referred to the Conso+idated 5und
and this -as fu++% e
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
19/33
.his is a+so obvious from the evidence of /r amchurn -ho stated the
fo++o-ing in Court@
O. '9y Court3 Ihat does it implyP
/. This implies that the >inistry of +inance will not give money because forthe financing of the pro;ect was that >inistry of +inance. Eow, we are
asking >inistry of )ealth to use your fund to finance the pro;ect but the
question is whether it was approved by 7arliament < at the time of
national budget approved, it was not in the budget, it was in the >inistry of
+inance budget to finance the geriatric hospital from the lottery funds.
There is a change of financing."
.hus, the origina+ contem+ated source of funds for the 'B ProFect -as
from the NEotto 5unds= from /"56D Bo-ever, as er /r amchurn, there -ereinstructions from /r Hi not to use the Eotto 5und but to instead finance same
through the use of
/"BIE=s ?dentified avings
According+%, /inute (*) in the ed 5i+e -as drafted b% /r amchurn and
same -as referred to the /"56D officia+s as -e++ as to the Accused, as the then
/inister of /"56D for their consideration and Arova+ in -riting It is this
e8ision hi8h is the s,9e8t matter of the *resent matter!
.his is articu+ar+% emhasised -hen /inute (*) is du+% considered ?n
fact, the fo++o-ing is found mentioned in the said /inute@
H…the Ministry of 3ealth and Juality of life 9MO3J): is re8uesting that funds …
be ade available$ by way of a Departental Carrant$ fro the proceed of the
lottery funds to finance the ac8uisition of land and building for the setting up of a
geriatric 3ospital.
'. 5he pro1ect was initially eararked to be funded under E6penditure ite
>->>"&&(inistry of )ealth and Ouality of Dife be
requested to reallocate funds from identified savings.
3 .ranscrit of roceedings dated 2>@01@2017, age G7
?bid, age G7@G*
C'o 2*71
Page '= of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
20/33
5rom the above, it is obvious that the re@a++ocation of funds in ;uestion is in
fact in resect of 8han+e of so,r8e of f,ns for the a87,isition of lan an
9,ilin+ for the settin+ ,* of N4H!
?t shou+d a+so be borne in mind that it -as never art of the Prosecution=s
case that Accused -as in an% -a% invo+ved in an% cabinet decision as regards
the 'B roFect or as to the choice of the site for the 'B ProFect .he
Prosecution=s case is so+e+% based on the decision aking process under Minute
9: as regards the re(allocation of funds so as to pay Medpoint )td for the
ac8uisition of land and building for the setting up of GK3.
.hus, the e A++ocation of funds as er the articu+ars of the information is
@ the 6ecision taken by /ccused as the >inister of >@+06 as regards the
/pproval which was given so as to Change from the originally /pproved
Source and >ode of +unding 'from >@+06Ks Dottery +und by way of6epartmental Iarrant3 to make use of >@)ODKs 5dentified Savings in order
to enable >@)OD to use same for EF)Ks purchase by way of a re
allocation of funds 'JVirementK3 e8ercise.
EBEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE
.he rea+ issue is therefore -hether Accused -hi+st being a public official
too: art in a decision of /"56D, APP"4?' the re a++ocation of funds to a%/edoint ( as e
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
21/33
an abso+ute rohibition on the public official to either vote or take part ?t goes
-ithout sa%ing that such abso+ute rohibition destro%s the ossibi+it% of an
Accused art% avai+ing himse+f of the defence that he acted in good faith. .he
Court a+so notes that section 13(2) P"CA mentions .AN/ roceedings of that
ub+ic bod% re+ating to such decision so that such a public official thereforecannot and shall not take part in any proceedings, whether a ma;or or
minor one, administrative or otherwise, relating to such decision. 5n short,
there is absolute prohibition to take part in any way whatsoever in any
decision making process.
.he reason for such an abso+ute rohibition is to reserve the integrit% of
the decision ma:ing rocess so that there ma% not be an% ercetion of bias in
the mind of a fair minded and informed observer .his is consistent -ith the dicta
of the ureme Court in 9aboolall v +armers Service Corporation * ors [!$! SC# "$"& , the re+evant e
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
22/33
'i3 public official whose
'ii3 relative has a personal interest in a 6ecision
'iii3 which a public body is to take *
'iv3 public official taking part in any proceedings of that public
body relating to such 6ecision.
'i3 7ublic official
?t is not disuted that the Accused -as a /inister of the overnment of the
da% at the materia+ time ?n fact, Accused concedes in his defence statement
9Doc 4 refers: that he -as aointed /inister of 5inance and 6conomic
Deve+oment in the then government
.he enab+ing Act has defined the term Hpublic official, as fo++o-s under
section 2 of the Act
Qpublic officialQ L
9a: eans a >inister $ a eber of the Gational +ssebly$ a public officer$ a
local governent officer$ an eployee or eber of a local authority$ a eberof a 4oission set up under the 4onstitution$ an eployee or eber of a
statutory corporation$ or an eployee or director of any Kovernent copanyA
9b: includes a ;udge$ an arbitrator$ an assessor or a eber of a 1uryA
9c: includes an official of the 0nternational 4riinal 4ourt referred to in the
0nternational 4riinal 4ourt +ct >&""A.
.herefore, it goes -ithout sa%ing that for a++ intents and uroses of the
Act, the Accused, a minister, is a Nub+ic officia+=, -ithin the arameters +aid do-n
b% the Act
'ii3
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
23/33
a++ocation of funds so as to enab+e a%ment for ac;uisition of /edoint Etd, in
-hich coman%, /rs ha+ini Devi /a+hotra, sister of Accused, he+d 237> O of
shares
.he definition of “relative” as er section 2 of the Act@
LrelativeL$ in relation to a person$ eans (
9a: a spouse or con1ugal partner of that personA
9b: a brother or sister of that personA
9c: a brother or sister of the spouse of that personA or
9d: any lineal ascendant or descendant of that personA
?t is art of the Prosecution=s case that the re+ative in ;uestion in this
matter is the Accused=s sister/rs ha+ini Devi /a+hotra .he Accused hasc+ear+% admitted in his statement 9Doc 4 refers$ folio "&&"&-: that ha+ini Devi
ugnauth is his sister -ho is civi++% married to one Dr /a+hotra, hence no-
/rs ha+ini Devi /a+hotra .his is an undeniab+e fact -hich in an% event has
a+so been roved through the roduction of certified e
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
24/33
The offence is committed merely by taking part in /EA proceedings
which leads to a decision in which the relative has a personal interest. The
offence is committed in fact when the /ccused places himself in a situation
of conflict of interest.
.he Court is fu++% a-are that the decision is in re+ation of a “coman%# and
that section 13(2) P"CA has not secified “copany” but rather -here the public
official$ an associate or relative has a personal interest.
Bo-ever, even if the Prosecution has adduced evidence as regards the
e
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
25/33
.he public body in ;uestion here in the +ight of the evidence adduced is
undoubted+% /"56D .he Act has given the fo++o-ing definition to “ub+ic bod%#
under section 2 of the P"CA
Qpublic bodyQ L
'a3 means a >inistry or Fovernment department, a 4oission set up under
the 4onstitution or under the authority of any other law$ a local authority$ or a
statutory corporationA and
9b: includes a Kovernent copanyA
.hus, it is c+ear that the /inistr% in ;uestion in this matter as er evidence
adduced is a ub+ic bod%
8e a+so have no doubt that /"56D had to decide on the issue of re@a++ocation of funds fo++o-ing the corresondence from /r ee-ooth on 22@12@10
so as to identif% the funds to enab+e a%ment to /edoint Etd for the ac;uisition
of +and and bui+ding for the 'B ProFect
?t is a+so essentia+ here to high+ight the fact that this -as b% no means a
sim+e decision 5irst+%, the substantia+ sum invo+ved is ref+ective of the nature
and substance of the decisionL second+%, the urgenc% of the decision since /r
ee-ooth had c+ear+% secified in his corresondence dated 22@12@10 9Doc E
refers: H ... to enable payent to be effected within fiscal year >&"&B 1 an 2010
to 31 December 2010 ., and it -as a+read% 23@12@10L +ast+%, the imortance of
this decision is evident from the /emorandum attached to the 4irement
Certificate dated 2J@12@10 9Doc G refers: .he re+evant aragrah in the
/emorandum reads as fo++o-s@
... this was necessary to enable the disbursement of funds under the
appropriate item of e8penditure to settle the land acquisition deal for the
setting up of a Eational Feriatric )ospital....
?t is c+ear that had no source of funds been identified urgent+%, theovernment -ou+d not have been ab+e to a% /edoint Etd -ithin fisca+ %ear
2010, hence the imortance of this decision
C'o 2*71
Page "$ of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
26/33
'iv3 4... public official takes part in any proceedings of that public
body relating to such decision ...G
.he decision in ;uestion is to be found at /inute (*) of the ed 5i+e
.he Accused does not disute his signature on /inute * and he a+soagreed -ith para # of Minute as er his o-n admission in his statement (Doc 4
refers ) Be ?n fact stated that he too: cogniance of the contents of /inute (*)
before signing same and did c+arif% that he did not ta:e cogniance of the
enc+osure referred at paragraph " of Minute 9: referring to folio. Go.? and
paragraph > anne6 folio ?9a:. Be a+so maintained under oath in Court to having
aroved the said /inute and affi
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
27/33
9#: 3e thereafter endorsed such agreeent by inserting the word Happroved,
under Minute 9%: and signed it.
?t is a+so evident that Accused too: art in the roceedings b% considering
the /inute -hich cu+minated in his decision of agreeing to and aroving the said
re;uest
As regards the status of such decision, /r Hi stated that the Accused
gave the final agreeent.G .his is a+so consistent -ith /r amchurn=s evidence
to the effect that usua++% the 5inancia+ ecretar% -ou+d arove fi+es sent to the
+atter un+ess the +atter decided that the fi+e needed to be sent to the /inister for
the +atter=s arova+ ?t is found in the resent matter that the said /inute -as
for-arded to the /inister since he -as one of the ersons to -hom /inute (*)
-as c+ear+% addressed, therefore im+%ing that the /inister=s arova+ -as
u+timate+% sought
.he Court a+so notes the status of the five ersons in /"56D=s hierarch%
to -hom Min,te # is addressed to and the secific -ording of paragraph ? of
Minute -hich states 4 < sub;ect to your agreement < 4 !see below $
ince the said minute -as addressed to five ersons inc+uding the
Accused for their consideration and agreement, it cou+d a+so be construed that
such agreement is in the form of a COBBECTIE MOFED A4REEMENT that
/"BIE -as to be re;uested to use their funds, and such co++ective agreement
?'CEMD6 the 4P/Accused=s Arova+
?ndeed, if on+% the /inister=sAccused=s Arova+ had been re;uired @ as
the Prosecution -ou+d ma:e the Court be+ieve @ then the Court -onders -h%
/inute * -as circu+ated amongst /"56D=s to officia+s and -h% the% signified
their Agreement
Bo-ever, -e find that -hether the arova+ b% the Accused is to be
construed as an individua+ or co++ective one is not re+evant for the uroses of the
resent offence ?n fact, the e@01@17, age 3
C'o 2*71
Page "; of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
28/33
“ta:ing art#, -hether maFor or minor, individua+ or co++ective -hich +eads to a
decision
As for the Accused=s signature on Minute , the Court notes the secific
use of the -ord “re8uested” in paragraph # of Minute ( the re+evant sentences
are reroduced over+eaf for ease of reference @
#. …. 0t is therefore proposed that Ministry of 3ealth Juality of )ife be
re8uested to re allocate funds fro identified saving….”
?. 2ub1ect to your agreeent to para # above$ MO3J) will be infored
accordingly
9y affi8ing his signature and approving the above request after
having considered the said >inute, the /ccused has beyond reasonable
doubt taken part in the decision making process which led to the decision
of requesting the >@)OD to re allocate funds from identified savings to
enable payment to >edpoint Dtd for the acquisition of land and building for
the EF) 7ro;ect.
.he defence has submitted that since the Accused had stated that he had
considered /inute (*) on+% -ithout ta:ing into account the other
fo+ioscorresondence in the ed 5i+e and since /inute (*) did not ma:e an%
mention of /edoint Etd, he cou+d not ossib+% have had :no-+edge that /inute
(*) -as in fact referring to /edoint Etd .his 9ench finds such reasoning devoidof substance and this for the reasons given be+o-
.he Court notes that Min,te # as dra-n u b% /r amchurn of /"56D
indeed ma:es no mention of the -ord “/edoint Etd# and refers on+% to “'B#
Bo-ever, a+beit the -ord /edoint is not mentioned in /inute *, the Court
observes that various corresondences in the ed 5i+e in -hich /inute * is found
o ma:e mention of the -ord “/edoint# and it is abundant+% c+ear that the name
/edoint -as a+-a%s mentioned in resect of ac;uisition of +and and bui+ding for
'B so that the +in: bet-een /edoint Etd and 'B -ou+d and shou+d havebeen easi+% and reasonab+% made b% the Accused
.he Court :ees in mind the fact that Accused dec+ared his interest at
Cabinet stage as soon as he heard about the 'B roFect and of the ossibi+it%
of /edoint being one of the bidders Be not on+% dec+ared his interest but
C'o 2*71
Page " of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
29/33
-ithdre- from Cabinet on the grounds that he did not -ant to articiate in an% of
the de+iberations -ith regard to that roFect>
Be adoted the same attitude -hen he -as referred to the +etter from the
then /inister of /"BIE, /rs /BanoomanFee dated 0>@0J@10 9Docs I$ I>
refer: ?n fact, -hen the contents of this +etter are considered, it is found that
there is no mention of /edoint Etd at a++ .he +etter -as in resect of source of
funding from the JDotto DotteryK scheme of certain pro;ects including EF)
but -ithout mentioning /edoint Etd Het, the Accused admitted that -hen the
said +etter -as brought to his attention, he instructed his adviser, /r
Do-ar:asing to dea+ -ith it te++ing him that he did not -ant to have an%thing to do
-ith the rocess and -ith the setting u of 'B10
?t is a+so of imortance to note here that the Accused ac:no-+edged that
the sum invo+ved in /inute (*) -as a significant one, 11 so that as a resonsib+eminister, he cannot be be+ieved -hen he stated he did not consider the other
fo+ios mentioned therein before affi>, the same %ear -hen he had a+so distanced himse+f
from the affairs of /edoint Etd
Bo-ever, -hi+st it is c+ear from his deosition that he -ou+d -ant the Court
to be+ieve that he did not :no- the number of shares his sister he+d in the said
> 4ide transcrit of roceedings dated 27@02@17, age 2J
10 ?bid, age 73
11 ?bid, age 7*
C'o 2*71
Page "= of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
30/33
coman%, he ho-ever did not state, in so man% c+ear or unambiguous terms, that
he did not :no- -hether his sister -as a shareho+der in the said coman% "n
the contrar%, -hen he -as as:ed as to -h% he fe+t it imortant to disc+ose his
interest in /edoint Etd, he re+ied the fo++o-ing
/H Iell >edpoint Dtd, my sister and my brother in law were
shareholders and it was being managed by my brother in law. Ihen the
issue was raised in Cabinet, 5 declared my interest and 5 said 5 donKt want to
have anything to do with that.$
.he above ans-er revea+s that the Accused -as fu++% a-are that his sister
-as shareho+der in the said coman% as -e++ as having an interest in the said
matter
Bo-ever, the Court finds that the Accused desite a++ the above -ou+d nothave refused to ta:e art and decide on the said re;uest in /inute (*) du+%
addressed to him 8e find suort for the said conc+usion in the +ight of his
re+ies on record Be in fact stated c+ear+% that he would not have refused to sign
the said inute 9: since he was the Minister of Finance and was in the country
so that he could not do otherwise than to approve."' Be is a+so on record to have
stated in Court that at an% rate since he had a+read% dec+ared his interest in
Cabinet and had never articiated in the decision ma:ing rocess that +ed to the
a-ard, he thought that ever%thing had been decided1 Be a+so stated that he
had no other choice but to arove17
Mnfortunate+%, Accused=s rec:+ess attitude -hen the decision to rea++ocate
funds so as to enab+e a%ment to /edoint Etd in -hich coman% his sister has a
ersona+ interest +ed to the commission of the resent offence
.he Court has a+read% high+ighted that the rohibition to ta:e art in an5
roceedings is an abso+ute one in the +ight of the rovision of the +a- under
section 13(2) of P"CA, so that even ?f the Accused acted in good faith, it -ou+d
12 ?bid, ages 71@72
13 ?bid, age 27
1 ?bid, age 7G
17 ?bid, age *>
C'o 2*71
Page 6& of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
31/33
not constitute an% defence .he defence of necessity is not in an% -a% avai+ab+e
here for obvious reasons as er the submissions from the Prosecution
.he Defence a+so estab+ished from C? A++ear that the Accused did not have
to ma:e the choice of bu%ing one amongst severa+ c+inics .he Defence further
c+ear+% submitted that there -as no evidence that the Accused had ta:en a
decision in favour of himse+f or his re+ative so that there is no offence 5he 4ourt
finds that the Defence,s interpretation of conflict of interest is flawed.
• Ihat is 4conflict of interestGP
.here is no re;uirement that Accused=s sister shou+d have been favoured
in such Decision
.he strict -ording of the enactment is such that the e+ements of the
offence are roved -hen the *,9li8 offi8ial taGes *art in AN De8ision
maGin+ *ro8ess in hi8h his relative has a *ersonal interest! Baving such a
substantia+ shareho+ding in /edoint -ou+d cause one to have a “personal
interest” in that coman%
As er the .Iorking 7apers on Conflict of 5nterest H Degislators,
>inisters and 7ublic @fficialsG by Ferard Carney, /ssociate 7rofessor of
Daw at 9ond ?niversity /ustralia ( -hich stud% -as commissioned b%
.ransarenc% ?nternationa+, “conflict of interest” is described in its sim+est terms
as @
4 < when the private interests of a politician or official clash or even
coincide with the public interest. Such a conflict of interest raises anethical dilemma when the private interest is sufficient to influence or
appear to influence the e8ercise of official duties.G
C'o 2*71
Page 6' of 66
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
32/33
And as er @0C6 '!!23 Conflict of 5nterest 7olicies * 7ractices in
Eine 0? >ember States 4 / Comparative (eviewG @ 20KM+
-
8/20/2019 Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth
33/33
reasonab+e man, to so c+ash .he appearance of influence or perception of
bias is sufficient to constitute the offence of conf+ict of interest
.he P"CA has rovided for the offence of conflict of interest as a crimina+offence .he facts of the resent case estab+ish the e+ements of the offence
be%ond reasonab+e doubt and the Court finds the charge roved be%ond
reasonab+e doubt against Accused
According+%, for a++ the reasons given above, -e find a++ the e+ements of the
resent offence against the A88,se *rove 9e5on all reasona9le o,9t!
The Co,rt therefore fins A88,se 4UIBT as 8har+e!
Dated this 30th
da% of une 2017
……………………………………… ……
…………………………………………
G.!asoondar$ M.0.+ Geerooa$
+g @.