Bernard Maigrot’s case not comparable to that of Cehl Meeah

[Rafic Soormally]

Although the charge against Cehl Meeah for giving instructions to commit the murder of three Labour Party activists and the charge against Bernard Maigrot for the murder of his mistress Vanessa Lagesse were both withdrawn by different DPP’s at different points in time does not mean that those two cases are comparable. The only comparability is in the DPP’s use of his discretionary powers.


Cehl Meeah - a ‘political prisoner’
Cehl Meeah was the leader of the Party of God, the Hizbullah Party, and he had been seriously denting the popularity of the Mouvement Militant Mauricien (MMM) Party in Port-Louis. In an alliance with the Movement Socialiste Militant (MSM), the MMM came to power in September 2000. Cehl Meeah was held in police custody in December 2000 based on the allegations of one or more self-confessed criminals, one of whom, in the name of Toorab Bissessur, allegedly already obtained monetary favours from Mr Paul Raymond Bérenger, leader of the MMM. The charge against Meeah was that he gave instructions to murder three Labour Party activists at Rue Gorah-Issac in Port Louis in 1996, when the Labour Party was in government.

From the beginning, Paul Bérenger held Cehl Meeah responsible for the murders, and what is generally regarded as the pro-Bérenger press had been leading a systematic campaign against Mr Meeah. In his editorial « Après quatre ans » on 4th December 2000, Gilbert Ahnee, chief editor of le Mauricien, reinforced his earlier comparison of Meeah with the Sikh pro-independence leader Sant Bhindranwale who was shot dead by the Indian army because he was considered a terrorist. He admitted that it was thanks to the Party of God of Meeah that the Labour Party candidates Rashid Beebeejaun and Siddick Chady were elected on 11 Sept 2000, because the Hizbullah had divided the votes of the militants. The chief editor also admitted that the effective arrest of Cehl Meeah was a direct result of the militants coming into government, for which he appeared very thankful - « …il a fallu attendre qu'Anerood Jugnauth et Paul Bérenger soient à nouveau au pouvoir pour qu'on ait les moyens, dans ce tout petit pays, de faire la lumière sur l'affaire Gorah-Issac. »

To assassinate the character of Cehl Meeah further, l'Express of 5th December 2000 described him as "dangeureux", "megalomane", "autocrate", and referred to the fanaticism of the Party of God. For its part, the weekly paper 5-Plus Dimanche apparently made out, on an alleged tip-off, that Cehl Meeah was running a 'terrorist' camp at Mont Blanc, which was totally and utterly false. Those papers were clearly spearheading a crusade against Meeah who was leading an Islamic movement [cf. the favourable treatment of the religious movement of Priest Grégoire]. Such campaign against Meeah was criticised as being his trial by the press to the extent that even the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions threatened to take the matter to the courts to put an end to such campaign. Me Nargis Bundhun, the then President of the Bar Council, also complained about trial by the press since this would seriously undermine the fair trial of the accused.

Cehl Meeah's case was debated before the Magistrate Lutchmee Parsad Aujayeb at the District Court of Port-Louis, in order to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to refer the matter to the assizes. However, Meeah did complain that he was not being given a fair preliminary hearing because he felt Magistrate was prejudiced against him [cf. The Judge in the Braintree Barn Murder Case]. Me Jacques Panglose for the defence even told the magistrate : « Your Honour cannot in law direct the accused as to how he is going to give his statement and in the more so, he is in the course of giving his statement as this goes against the law. » [News on Sunday, 14 June 2002]. Cehl Meeah himself had been crying out against political vendetta against him. The case of Cehl Meeah, who was refused bail for nearly three years (Dec 2000 – October 2003), retained the attention of Amnesty International and other Human Rights organisations. He also claimed that he was tortured in custody but he never confessed.

On 19th February 2003, the Magistrate Lutchmee Parsad Aujayeb decided to refer Meeah to the assizes although the allegations of the main witness and self-confessed criminal, Hateem Oozeer, were never independently corroborated. Toorab Bissesseur, who had previously obtained money from Paul Bérenger, had also implicated Meeah, but he was never summoned before the Magistrate. On 30th October 2003, Me Abdurrafeek Hamuth, the then DPP, withdrew all charges made against Cehl Meeah.

Case of Bernard Maigrot
The case of Bernard Maigrot may come under what is usually called « crime of passion ». Believed to have had the motive, Bernard Maigrot was accused of the murder of his mistress, Vanessa Lagesse, on the night between 09 and 10 March 2001 in her beach house in Grand Bay. He was arrested on 23rd April 2001 by the late Police Superintendent Prem Raddhoa. Mr Maigrot conceded that, on the eve of his mistress’s murder, he did speak to her several times over the telephone, but that he did not see her on the night of the murder. He also provided the names of his alibis, Mr François and Mrs Martine Desmarais with whom he alleged he was having dinner [le Mauricien, 28 May 2008]. But, while confirming that Vanessa Lagesse was indeed the mistress of her husband, Isabelle Maigrot confirmed in the Supreme Court that, on the eve of the murder, she was having dinner with her husband and their two children in a restaurant in Grand Bay [l’Express, 03 March 2004]. Moreover, his fingerprints were not found at the crime scene. Mr Maigrot claimed his innocence but later confessed to the murder while in police custody, although he subsequently retracted and alleged that his confession was extracted through torture by the ex-Superintendent Raddhoa and his officers. After listening to 71 witnesses at the preliminary hearing, the Senior Magistrate Azam Neerooa decided, on 28th November 2007, that there was sufficient evidence to refer the matter to the assizes. Having carefully gone through the evidence, the DPP Me Gérard Angoh decided, on 27th May 2008, to withdraw the murder charge against Mr Maigrot on the ground that there was insufficient evidence.

Earlier, Bernard Maigrot had lodged a claim against the ex-Superintendant Raddhoa and three other members of his team, namely Constable Dookhony, Corporal Fareedun and ex-Superintendent Bala Kamatchi, claim later amended after Raddhoa’s death to include his heirs, for damages for alleged torture while in custody. This case is still pending.

Powers of the DPP
Under constitutional powers, the DPP can withdraw charges and stop any prosecutions, whether or not entered privately, and he is under no obligation to give reasons. The private prosecutions entered against Paul Bérenger in the money to Bissessur affair were also stopped by the then DPP, Me Ah Foon Chui Yew Cheong, and there was no outcry for explanations or for the review of the powers of the DPP. But, in the case of Bernard Maigrot, Anne Rogers, the elder sister of Vanessa Lagesse, wants the DPP to offer explanations. Although there is nothing which prevents the DPP from justifying his decision, it is unlikely that any DPP would do so. However, as stated by the Chief Justice, Me Bernard Sik Yuen, an interested party can apply for the review of the DPP’s decision. [l’Express, 4 June 2008].

Conclusion
The case of Cehl Meeah has often been referred to in the aftermath of the withdrawal of the murder charge against Bernard Maigrot. But there are fundamental differences between the circumstances of the two cases. First of all, Meeah was not suspected as the perpetrator of the murders, but as someone who allegedly gave instructions to commit those murders. Meeah never confessed to any crime.

On the other hand, the case of Bernard Maigrot appears to bear the hallmark of a « crime of passion » Although Mr Maigrot alleged torture in police custody for which he has entered a claim in damages, he did sign one or more confessions while in custody. Normally, such confessions, when disputed, tend to be viewed suspiciously in deciding bail, but not in deciding torture in extracting such confession. Such matters are usually left to the jury in the light of all the evidence. However, it appears that the DPP may have been satisfied that there was torture in this case, hence his ‘rejection’ of the confession of Bernard Maigrot, confession that is central to his prosecution.

While, when charges against Cehl Meeah were withdrawn, there was a virulent campaign to curtail the powers of the DPP, in the case of Bernard Maigrot the emphasis is for the DPP to justify his decision. As an interested party, the victim’s sister, Anne Rogers, may well consider applying for the review of the DPP’s decision. Interested parties can also be any of the defendants (the heirs of Prem Raddhoa et al) in the case of damages for torture brought by Bernard Maigrot because the DPP’s decision not to prosecute the prime suspect Mr Maigrot may damage their defence in that the DPP could not have believed that the confession of Mr Maigrot was made of his own free will, hence his decision to withdraw the charge.

M Rafic Soormally
London
09 June 2008 (abridged version)

[Nadeem]

Ici anglais ici do bhai... nou pas comprend ca ki ou pe dire!

Franchement et en bref: ca me saoule!