Les débats sur l’appel de Pravind Jugnauth, condamné dans l’affaire MedPoint, ont pris fin le mercredi 13 janvier. Le chef juge Kheshoe Parsad Matadeen et le juge Asraf Caunhye ont réservé leur jugement.

16h32 : Les partisans du MSM se regroupent – certains ont un drapeau britannique – alors que Pravind Jugnauth sort de la cour. Le leader du parti soleil a le sourire aux lèvres. Des applaudissements retentissent.

16h28 : Le jugement est réservé.

16h27 : Fin du discours de Me Clare Montgomery.

16h21 : «I insist that the decision to buy MedPoint was already taken. Neither DPP nor ICAC were able to dismiss what I have said. The memo is not a question about whether to pay or not to pay. It’s asking the minister of Finance from where to source the fund. My learned friend (Me Rashid Ahmine, NdlR) has a big misunderstanding on disclosure. My learned friend is trying to place the burden on proof on the defence. Burden on proof is not on innocence. The test is : was disclosure part of doing things legally and responsibly? The answer is yes.»

16h20 : «There was a meeting on the 18th October 2010 to increase the budget. It is very hard to understand the allocation of budgetor whether payment must be made. (…) Respondent did not prove that my client knew the interest. They did not even ask him what he knew of the financial interest of his sister.»

16 heures : Elle poursuit : «When we look at personal interest, it is individual, direct and non corporate interest. (…) There has to be some explanation about why the appellant's sister care whether the funds came from the ministry of Health or Finance. (…) It was agreed that reallocation of funds was needed to make projects.»

15h53 : «If we look at the American law as mentioned by Me Ahmine, to see how the corporation is made, this is not a financial personal interest. There is a distinction between corporate and financial interest. His sister has 20% interest, it is not enough to have personal interest. We ought to measure the intensity of interest. If it is conflict of interest why is it not about appearance of interest?» questionne Me Clare Montgomery.

15h40 : Me Clare Montgomery : «Corporate veil: it is not a personal financial interest.»

15h39 : Des partisans s’étaient massés devant la Cour suprême, pensant que Pravind Jugnauth sortirait bientôt. La police a dû intervenir.

15h52 : Me Clare Montgomery, l’avocate britannique de Pravind Jugnauth, prend la parole. «The nature of conflict of interest must be personal», dit-elle.

15h06 : Fin du discours de Me Rashid Ahmine.

15 heures : «Appearance of a conflict of interest is sufficient in USA», déclare Me Rashid Ahmine, répliquant à ce qu’avait dit Me Clare Montgomery mardi. «But still what I have been submitting since this morning shows that there is an actual case of conflict of interest. Not just an appearance.»

14h27 : «Note that section 13 (2) of PoCA says SHALL NOT, while elsewhere in the same law, other terms are used. This shows the intention of the legislator to establish absolute prohibition.»

14h09 : Pour la troisième fois, le chef juge Kheshoe Parsad Matadeen rappelle Me Rashid Ahmine à l’ordre sur la chronologie et la valeur du document signé par Pravind Jugnauth: «This is not a reevaluation document. You have to be fair on this.» Au Senior Assistant DPP de répondre : «Ok my Lord. I’ll bear that in mind.»

13h57 : «I am challenging the appellant’s credibility. How can he say that he dit not know NGH project was actually MedPoint. I agree that the memo he signed bore the heading NGH and not MedPoint.»

13h52 : «Absconding from CAB allows me to sign the documents», dit Me Rashid Ahmine, citant Pravind Jugnauth. Selon lui, «this is complete misconception».

13h46 : «If he knew that NGH project could cause him to be in conflict of interest for a cabinet meeting, how could he no longer know, months later, that he could still be in conflict of interest when the memo came to him?» demande le Senior Assistant DPP. Et d’ajouter : «The minister had a misconception of his duties.»

13h38 : «Now the question of intention. Appellant claims that he could not be aware of the conflict of interest.» Me Rashid Ahmine remonte à la déposition de Pravind Jugnauth à l’ICAC, dans laquelle il a expliqué qu’il a quitté la réunion du conseil des ministres quand le projet NGH a été abordé.

13h36 : «If Pravind Jugnauth was not sure, he should have sought legal advice. Instead of signing the memo on the same day.»

13h33 : «This is a major decision with a major repercussion : more funds in lotto fund, less funds in MOHQL», affirme-t-il.

13h28 : «If it was initially decided that the Lotto Fund would finance NGH, changing the source to MOHQL implies a decision. This is not just an approval. It is a clear cut decision made by the appellant», dit Me Rashid Ahmine. «Neither the Financial Secretary nor any other ministry of finance official signed the document. If it was an administrative step, it would have been delegated to government employees», ajoute-t-il.

13h25 : Me Rashid Ahmine décortique maintenant la réallocation des fonds.

13h06 : Pravind Jugnauth est de retour en Cour suprême. Le ministre Sunil Bholah n’a toutefois pas pu entrer.

12h23: La séance a été suspendue pour la pause déjeuner. La reprise est prévue à 13h15.

12h21: Me Rashid Ahmine dit: «J'ai cité l'affaire Mississipi My Lords. L'affaire peut être différente, mais le principe est le même».

12h14: Premiers échanges entre Me Rashid Ahmine et Me Clare Montgomery.  L'avocate de Pravind Jugnauth se met debout, visiblement agacée par l'absence d'une page dans sa copie des notes auxquelles se référe le représentant du DPP. Toutefois, Me Ahmine poursuit et fait mine d'ignorer. Me Clare Montgomery renchérit... Ahmine la renvoie à la bonne page

12h00 : Le chef juge Kheshoe Parsad Matadeen interrompt Me Rashid Ahmine alors qu’il faisait la chronologie de l’affaire. «Excuse me. There is evidence against what you are saying», dit-il. Mais il se ravise. «I leave it to the other party to raise the issue. Carry on.»

11h45 : Le représentant du DPP cite des dépositions de deux témoins en cour, Cholakumar Ramchurn, qui était Senior Analyst au ministère des Finances, et Premhans Jhugroo, ancien Supervising Officer du ministère de la Santé. Me Rashid Ahmine devait indiquer que lorsqu’il a été demandé à Ramchurn pourquoi le mémo a été envoyé au ministre, l’officier a répondu «he decides». Quant à Jhugroo, à la question, «is this step important», il a dit «yes it’s crucial». Selon Me Rashid Ahmine, «this is not just a rubber stamp administrative step. Employees of MOFED say that this is crucial not administrative».

11h40 : Me Rashid Ahmine poursuit : «There was a consequence for government : payment was made immediately. There is a difference between immediate payment and delaying payment.»

11h39 : A noter qu’aucun ministre n’est présent dans la salle d’audience, contrairement à hier.

11h37 : «I know that the appellant relies very much on this issue : administrative step. But I just explained why his signature is not an administrative process», poursuit le Senior Assistant DPP.

11h36 : « Did the minister think of the consequence of this approval? Didn’t he? We are talking of a huge sum of money. Didn’t the minister consider?»

11h30 : «Implementation is a process. Section 13 (2) of PoCA says any process. The law does not talk about early stage, later stage, the law says any process. There is absolute prohibition. My Lords, please consider the mischief», lance Me Rashid Ahmine.

11h25 : Me Rashid Ahmine aborde à présent la question suivante: «Whether prejudice has been caused to the government.» Il devait déclarer qu’en cour intermédiaire, «appellant said that just implementing, nothing more, nothing less. We say that no need to show prejudice. It’s not just a question from where to fund. It’s not just a question of funding from MOH or Loto fund. The memo signed in fact allowed payment to be made to MedPoint. Note that the same day approval was sought, same day approval was given. Was the personal interest of the sister sufficient to give approval? Yes!».

11h20 : Pendant ce temps, à l’extérieur de la Cour suprême :

11h04 : Me Rashid Ahmine cite un jugement français : «L’interposition des personnes, ou des sociétés dans la consommation du délit n’est qu’une façade.» Il a aussi parlé d’un autre jugement de la cour de cassation dans une affaire impliquant la Société Générale.

10h56 : «If we start invoking this principle of separate entity and corporate bail, then the whole concept of conflict of interest is flouted. This cannot apply here. Even Wenzel in the Mississippi case tried to invoke the corporate status. But the court said that it disregards the corporate entity in this case», poursuit le Senior Assistant DPP.

10h47 : Me Rashid Ahmine revient sur les déclarations de Me Clare Montgomery, mardi, notamment en ce qui concerne la company law, le limited liability, etc. L’avocate britannique de Pravind Jugnauth avait souligné que «the sister of the minister did not gain more or lose less beacause of company laws». Pour le Senior Assistant DPP, «we are interpreting a criminal provision. The question of separate entity as per corporation and company laws is not applicable here».

10h39 : «Now I get to the first ground of appeal, the question of personal interest. The fact that the word “indirect” does not appear in section 13.2 does not mean that this section does not encompass indirect interest», indique le Senior Assistant DPP. Pendant ce temps, Me Clare Montgomery prend des notes.

10h37 : Me Rashid Ahmine en vient à l’article 13 (2) du PoCA. «Conflict of interest in itself does not constitute an unlawful act, I agree. Provided the person does everything to avoid abusing of this conflict of interest. The appellant did not do everything!» Fin du premier argument.

10h33 : Alors que le Senior Assistant DPP parle, Pravind Jugnauth regarde droit devant lui, n’accordant aucun regard à Me Rashid Ahmine.

10h30 : «We insist on the breadth of the provisions in France and USA. Broad legislation is not a loophole. They were made like this on purpose. On purpose also here in Mauritius», soutient Me Rashid Ahmine.

10h20 : «Clare Montgomery yesterday said that PoCA was conservative. No, it cannot be. (…) It’s like this in the USA, in France. This is the crux of the matter. There is an absolute prohibition. This is the principle of the case.»

10h15 : Me Rashid Ahmine fait référence à l’affaire Mississipi Valley Construction aux Etats-Unis. Les juges américains ont indiqué que «regardless of loss or gain made by the company, a violation of conflict of interest justifies the cancellation of the contract. They also said “even if the consultant did not think that his activity involved a conflict of interest”. This is important because we are saying that the same concept applies to section 13(2) of PoCA».

10h06 : Le représentant du DPP cite la loi américaine contre le conflit d’intérêts. «US have amended their laws to remove "indirect interest". In France also, they are enlarging the word interest. That’s a global practice.»

10h02 : Me Rashid Ahmine : «Just to come back on what has been argued yesterday, please bear in mind the concept of absolute prohibition. This appears at least four times in the penal code.» Il devra ce mercredi présenter des contre-arguments à l’exposé de Me Clare Montgomerysur les «interest, intensity of interest»...

10h00 : Les juges arrivent, le procès démarre. Me Rashid Ahmine, le représentant du DPP, est le premier à prendre la parole.

9h45 : Pravind Jugnauth, l’air détendu, fait son entrée en Cour suprême. Les représentants du bureau du DPP ainsi que le panel d’avocats du leader du MSM.

Mardi, Me Clare Montgomery, QC et leading counsel du leader du Mouvement socialiste militant (MSM), et Me Rashid Ahmine, Senior Assistant DPP, ont croisé le fer sur l’article 13 (2) du Prevention of Corruption Act (PoCA). C’est en vertu de cette loi que Pravind Jugnauth avait été trouvé coupable de conflit d’intérêts. Il avait été condamné à purger 12 mois de prison par les magistrats Niroshni Ramsoondar et Azam Neerooa le 30 juin 2015.

Le Jugement de La Cour Intermédiaire Contre Pravind Jugnauth by L'express Maurice

Me Clare Montgomery a qualifié le PoCA de loi relativement conservatrice. «In my humble view this is a relatively conservative law in determining what is conflict of interest. But I do not want to argue much more on that.»

Me Rashid Ahmine lui a donné la réplique sur ce chapitre dans l’après-midi. Il a fait l’historique du PoCA. Il a expliqué que celle-ci vise à combattre la fraude et la corruption sous toutes les formes, y compris le délit de conflit d’intérêts.

Si les débats prendront fin mercredi, il est très peu probable que le verdict soit connu le même jour. Un recours au Conseil privé n’est pas à écarter du côté des deux parties, que ce soit du bureau du Directeur des poursuites publiques (DPP) ou de la défense en cas de jugement défavorable. Quelle serait donc la marche à suivre une fois le verdict rendu ? Eclairage : les différentes options légales après l’appel.