Jean Claude Bibi

Jean - Claude Bibi, Barrister

10, Dauphine Street, Port Louis; tel/fax: [phone]; mobile: [phone];

e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
Date: 12 November 2002
The DPP

DPP’s Office

Port Louis.
Dear Madam,
I act for Messrs Devianand Narrain and Roland Fauzoo.
1. On 14 May 2002 an information was sworn upon oath by the police prosecutor of the District Court of Grand Port and lodged against my clients charging them with the offence of Rogue and Vagabond in breach of Section 28 (1) (c) and (2) of the Criminal Code Act

(Supplementary). The Cause Number of the case is 2661/02.

2. On 15 October 2002 Her Honour the District Magistrate of Grand Port delivered her judgment. She dismissed the charge against the two accused.
3. At page 3 of her judgment, the Magistrate noted that the complainant stated in Court that he had been arrested and beaten by the police a few days before the alleged offence was committed. He further stated that it was one Goorah, a Police Inspector who had induced him to give a statement against the accused under the treat of further brutality on the part of the police. I would like to quote the relevant extracts:
“ It came out in his cross - examination that he had been arrested a few days before

the incident and had been questioned and even beaten up by the police.”
And again:
“ The complainant also stated in cross-examination that he had simply signed his, he contents of which he did not know and he did so under threat of brutality on the part of the police. He even added hat it was Inspector Goorah, Witness no. 5, who had threatened him and the police officers had been swearing a him and the two accused.”
4. These extracts from the sworn testimony of a police witness contain serious charges against the police officers involved. It must also be borne in mind that this account of the behavior of Inspector Goorah and other police officers at the police station is fully corroborated by the testimony given also under oath by the accused.

5. In the course of the trial, Police Sergeant Saumtally produced a plan (filed as Document A) of the locus and explained in Court that it was drawn up in accordance to certain spots allegedly shown to him on 27 March 2002 by the complainant, Witness no1. During his cross-examination, Counsel pointed out to him that, according to the explanatory notes written on the plan, the all the spots were shown to him by Witness no.2, the wife of the complainant and not by the complainant himself. Police Sergeant Saumtally then stated that his report on Document A was based on what Witness no.2 told him. He added that Witness No.2 was present when he called at her home to draw up the plan. Yet, in her sworn testimony in Court, Witness no.2 adamantly denied that she ever showed any spots to Police Sergeant Saumtally. Indeed she explained she was no even at home on 27 March 2002.
6. In her judgment the Magistrate paid close attention to this astounding discrepancy between what Document A produced by the prosecution purports to prove and what actually transpired in Court. It is impossible not to deduce that Document A is a complete fabrication that has been forged by the police. The following extract from the judgment is damning:
“ Prosecution’s evidence is tainted with gross contradictions which are so flagrant that they ought to be highlighted here.
First, as regards the real evidence contained in Document A produced, the “rough sketch” drawn up by PS Saumtally is allegedly based on the spots indicated by Witness No. 2 which was again allegedly confirmed by Witness No.1. In Court Witness no. 2 was adamant on the fact that a no time did she indicate any spot to the police officers. She was not even at home when the police had come. Furthermore, her testimony in Court is in total contradiction with the legend on the plan –namely on the fact that showed was allegedly lying in bed when she heard voices in the verandah. Witness No. 2 maintained that she was never in bed, but was in the toilet outside.”
7. In her judgment the Magistrate states the following:
“The second series of contradictions are found in the sequence of events as related by all the prosecution. Witness no.4 stated that they intervened upon hearing voices. Witness no.5 stated that Witness no1 has requested their assistance (by phone). Witness no.1 himself denied having done so but had said that he asked for the police in the vicinity to assist him.”
8. I would like to emphasise here that we are not dealing in this case with mere discrepancies or serious contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution, A perusal of the judgment and an analysis of the proceedings demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that we are confronting a patent case of police persecution, of police manipulation of complainant, of police fabrication of real evidence, of police concoction of a case against two citizens. We are dealing with a case of police conspiracy, a conspiracy headed by Inspector Goorah. No surprisingly, the latter did its utmost but failed to avoid cross-examination. What was surprising and alarming is the fact that the State Law Office attempted at some point to shield Inspector Goorah, the instigator of the conspiracy, from cross-examination.

9. More alarming is the fact that the District Clerk has now informed me that Document A has disappeared from the Court file. This real piece of police forgery has simply vanished. I am informed that Police Sergeant Saumtally is now claiming that no copy exists in the police file. It would seem that the conspiracy goes on.
10. You may be aware that the National Human Rights Commission showed an active and written interest in this case even before the trial was over and before judgment was delivered. This is most interesting inasmuch as the two accused never complained to the NHRC. It would seem that the NHRC acted proprio motu. My clients have since informed me that they have little, if any, confidence left in the NHRC’s ability to defend human rights. I certainly believe they have good grounds to hold this view.
11. They have, instead, instructed me to request you to order an inquiry into their arrest, persecution and prosecution by the police. It is manifest from the above that there is more than prima facie evidence of a police conspiracy against them.
12. I would be therefore grateful if you could consider this request and inform me accordingly.
Yours sincerely,

(Jean-Claude Bibi)