Douche froide pour l’agent politique Vivek Pursun et ses acolytes. Le DPP ne va pas donner de suite à leur Private Prosecution contre Maneesh Gobin et l’ex-PPS Rajanah Dhaliah. Il y aura une « Discontinuance of Proceedings » explique le Directeur des Poursuites Publiques dans un communiqué émis aujourd’hui.

Le DPP considère qu’il y a un « manque de preuves » dans ce dossier, qui lui a été communiqué. Après l’analyse des éléments, il précise qu’il n’y a que des « Hearsay Evidence » et que la décision du DPP à ce stade, ne doit pas être interprétée, comme un fait, qu’il n’y a pas matière ou qu’il y en a. Car il faut, dit-il, attendre le dossier de l’Icac dans cette affaire.

La motion présentée par l’Attorney General, Maneesh Gobin, et celle déposée par l’ancien Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS), Rajanah Dahlia, ont été retirées ce lundi 18 septembre, en Cour suprême, devant la Cheffe juge par intérim Nirmala Devat.

Les deux parlementaires réclamaient chacun un ordre visant à annuler la « private prosecution » déposée contre eux par Vivay Kanun Pursun, devant le tribunal de Curepipe. Me Adeelah Hamuth, Acting Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions et qui représente le DPP, a informé la cour que les éléments fournis par les conseillers légaux de Vivay Kanum Pursun sont insuffisants pour établir les accusations portées par celui-ci contre l’ancien PPS et l’AG.

En conséquence, elle a précisé que le DPP déposera une “discontinuance of proceedings” devant le tribunal de Curepipe une fois l’ordre de gel de la Private Prosecution, levé.

Voici son communiqué :

STATEMENT OF BEHALF OF THE DPP (Co-Respondent)

1. The DPP, has, in consultation with senior officers of his Office, assessed the evidence found in the materials communicated to him on behalf of Respondent no.1, in the light of the charges that have been preferred against the Applicant by the Respondent No.1.

In that respect, anxious and careful consideration have been given to the elements that have to be established by the private prosecutor to prove the relevant charges.

The DPP has also considered the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of England and Wales in the case of R (on the application of Gujra) (FC) (Appellant) v Crown Prosecution Service (Respondent) [2012] UKSC 52 (copy filed) where it was held that the DPP was right not to allow a private prosecution to proceed when the evidence did not pass the “reasonable prospect of conviction” test.

In the light of the evidence at hand at this stage, the DPP, finds that there is insufficient evidence to establish the charges against the Applicant to the required standard. The decision of the DPP is based only on the materials submitted to him by the private prosecutor on 25 and 28 August 2023 and 04 September 2023. Such materials include evidence which is hearsay in nature, hence inadmissible in a Court of Law.

The decision of the DPP, at this stage, is not to be taken to mean either there is no case or there is one against the Applicant (defendant in the private prosecution). The DPP will be able to take such an informed decision following the referral of the case to him by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in pursuance of Section 47(6) of the Prevention Against Corruption Act.

The DPP endorses the legitimate expectation of citizens that offenders are brought before justice without delay. The DPP further acknowledges the public interest in ensuring that investigations are carried out promptly and within a reasonable time. In that respect the DPP relies on the diligence of the ICAC, in so far as practicable, to submit its report at the earliest.

2. The DPP accordingly intends to file a discontinuance of proceedings, by virtue of the powers vested upon him by section 72(3) (c) of the Constitution, in the matter lodged before the District Court of Upper Plaines Wilhems.