King Beeda
4 September 2007
Port Louis — The article by Deepa Bhookun on 'Presumed Guilty, Found Innocent' was interesting reading. It reminded me of a very good and intellectual friend who returned to Mauritius after nearly 20 years in academic research in various institutions in the United Kingdom to serve the nation only to be harassed and intimidated by some internal staff at a well known institution at Reduit because his qualifications and expertise were such that he became a threat to a few who were aspiring to become directors of the said organisation.
The worst was to come when he was reported to the police for forgery on many counts and ultimately charged for the alleged crime only to be found not guilty by the court. One would have thought that was the end of the matter. But not in Mauritius where people who are legitimately found and proven to be innocent in a court of law, are still thought of as though the crime was committed and the alleged person to be deemed a criminal.
My friend (RG) has had enough and decided to return to UK where he is doing extremely well. He was going to succeed wherever he was going to go anyway what with a doctorate and several years experience with eminent and internationally well known academics. His experiences are worth relating because it seems many of us do go through the same experiences as his at some point of our life in our beautiful island although we don't like to talk about it and are not honest enough to admit it.
It was obvious to everyone that my friend was a star and this was really his downfall. How do we stop someone who has become a major threat to us? In Mauritius, the answer is very simple: put a criminal charge against him and have him suspended for a while until his position is filled. And this was exactly what was done to RG who had come to Mauritius to 'servi nou pays'.
In the meantime, several meetings were held to brief the witnesses to make sure that they said the same and right thing so that RG is found guilty. Was this not a classic case of contempt of court? But we won't go into this. Specimens of RG's handwriting were dispatched to UK for confirmation and the results of the tests were made available freely to anyone who was interested in the saga. Ironically, at the same institution one member of staff who was witnessed forging another person's signature was not reported to the police because she was in the good books. She is currently working for Icac fighting corruption!
The schemers
To the surprise of those who were scheming against RG, the results from the police handwriting expert proved not conclusive but this was not enough for the opponents who were hell bent to destroy RG's career and reputation. The strategy of the organisation's director in question was to send a Parliamentary Question through Kishore Deerpalsingh. And guess what, the response was prepared by the same director in question. Unluckily for the director, the response from the then Minister of Education was that the police was enquiring in the matter and he did not want to elaborate further.
Normally when a file from the police goes to the State Law Office, it takes a long time, sometimes two years for the lawyers to decide what actions if any need to be taken and approximately another six weeks for it to be lodged in the court. A further two years is spent in the courts making a grand total of nearly four years and six months. In the case of my friend, it took just two weeks for SLO to decide and to lodge the case. I am also reliably informed that the two lawyers who should have studied my friend's file did not get access to the file because that particular case was being monitored for its delivery from the CCID to SLO's office and was redirected to another lawyer. The chief investigating officer confirmed that there was a lot of interest on RG's case from the SLO. We won't go into the nitty gritty of this matter but could it be that the director in question had a relative or friend who was based at the SLO who was closely monitoring the situation?
When the case was heard, my friend was exonerated on all counts. But it did not end there and certainly not for the director in question. I always thought if you are found innocent, then you are innocent but in the case of my friend, the Minister of Education of that time was approached on a number of occasions on why my friend should not be reinstated. This was based on the fact that the director in question happened to have a report (Forensic) which others are dangling about which shows that my friend had committed an offence. If this was the case why the director didn't reproduce that particular evidence to the court? I think I know the answer to this because I happen to have a relative who is a lawyer. Legally the director should have let the police do their job because they have the necessary resources to do that job. If, however, the police did not have the resources then there are procedures to follow to get outside help and that would have required clearance from the Prime Minister. As it was, the Mauritian police was capable to decide whether my friend had committed forgery or not and their report was presented to the court to decide what the outcome should be.
The court found RG not guilty on all counts but it took his employer six months to write to him and ask him to return to work and that was only the beginning. Promotion was denied on two occasions and to make matters worse a senior person was reverted to her old position just to stop my friend from getting the promotion despite him being more qualified than the people above him. He had to bear remarks that 'he does not have any decency' 'a child could see he is guilty' 'it is a clear cut case of forgery' 'the forensic report is clear he is guilty' 'he has spent all his millions from UK on bribery to get off the hook'.
The impression one gets from the above experience is that if you are charged for a crime in Mauritius, irrespective of whether you are found guilty or not, some people will always think you are guilty. Is there a need for the courts?
Stooping so low
I have come across many such stories in Mauritius where officers are reported purely and simply to prevent them going up the ladder. At the time RG's case was being heard, there were around 138 officers in similar boats. Why do we have to stoop so low to satisfy our desires for promotions? Why do we have to make life difficult for colleagues to get an upper hand?
On the very first day of joining his new institution, RG heard the following 'daccord li bien qualifier depuis langletterre. Daccord li ena lexperience. Nou besoin arrette li. Pas laisse li monter. Nou fine travail dur ici. Nou besoin faire tou possible pou lipas gagne promotion'. My friend who was sitting next door (inside windows slightly open) politely told them that he was hearing their conversation! Now, it has become clear why he was reported to the police in the first instance. As for the person who was scheming against my friend, he is currently advising one of the Ministers!
There is a moral to the above story which is worth pointing out:
â-è Never rush to have someone condemned. Let it run its natural course. It may backfire. In the case of my friend, what should have taken nearly four years and six months to decide his innocence or otherwise was done within two years. So, when he was going to be interdicted, he was being reinstated in his old job.
â-è What happens in real life is not the same as what we see in Indian movies where any stranger can turn up unannounced when the court is in session and become a reliable and credible witness 'theria, mere pass subout hai' and his only evidence is used by the judge to decide the fate of the accused. Using my friend's case as an example, one can't just contact any organisation to collect evidence (forensic or otherwise) as was initially done. We should leave this to the police to follow the correct stipulated procedures. Collecting evidence illegally will not help the matter and can't be used in court although it could be used maliciously to undermine someone. I seem to recall an ex-director coming back to his previous institution to request detriment files about an officer to be delivered to the Prime Minister.
â-è Never make someone's life miserable because the one whose life is being made unbearable may well turn out to be the winner at the end of the day. My friend fits the bill very well. He got the opportunity to get out and, hey presto, his life is full of roses not just for him but also for his family. Will he return to his native land 'pou servi payee? I will be very surprised if he does. It's time to put that famous forensic report where it belongs in the bin.
With so many of our people heading for greener pastures in Canada, United Kingdom and elsewhere, I wish I could join him but personal responsibilities demand I stay in paradise island until, of course, I experience the same fate as my friend when I will have no choice but to
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2007 L'Express. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
