The report of judicial inquiry in the death of Kistnen was sent to the director of public prosecutions (DPP) by Magistrate (Ms.) Vidya Mungroo-Jugurnath who conducted the inquiry in a masterly and fearlessly independent manner assisted by a group of lawyers and Mr. Neerooa from the office of the DPP. Speculations were running high in the public following the closure of the judicial inquiry. Many of the speculations have been confirmed by the findings of the magistrate.

The cause of death was a vital feature of the inquiry as two police medical officers came to different conclusions. The magistrate concluded that the death was a homicide and she categorically rejected the suicide theory put forward by the police. There was contradictory evidence on the cause of death of Kistnen. The magistrate found it strange that the corpse had been taken to Dr. Jeetoo hospital instead of Candos. The police could not give any explanation on this. It is very disturbing that the professionals among police medical officers and among the FSL could get mixed up on the level of carbon monoxide in the blood. Did the police medical officer and the FSL make a genuine mistake or were they motivated by some other consideration in their scientific finding, in which case it might be a conspiracy?

A serious investigation is called for if the public can still be expected to trust police medical officers. Even the magistrate has recommended that an inquiry should be carried out on the obscure manner in which the autopsy was made to be carried out by Dr. Sunasee. She went further and recommended an inquiry on the professional competence of the doctor to practice as a police medical officer.

The other aspect of the report of Magistrate (Ms.) Vidya MungrooJugurnath concerns the manner in which the police went about the investigation after the body of Kistnen was found. As the inquiry was unfolding, it brought to light the amateurish way in which the police investigation was conducted. Initially the police rushed into a theory of suicide. It required the sagacity and tenacity of the lawyers representing the widow to ferret the truth. The magistrate accuses the police of blatantly overlooking obvious facts which would have alerted any reasonable police officer to the possibility of foul play. She also points out that the police failed to ask themselves the question about the CCTV footage in their possession that showed Kistnen leaving Telfair but not coming back. This should have raised the question of who brought the body back. The police also failed to compare the DNA recovered at the scene where the body was found with the DNA of other persons associated with Kistnen. Forensic evidence was kept away from the DPP and the court. The police were unable to give any satisfactory explanation for this act of negligent or deliberate omission.

On this issue, the magistrate did not mince her words by writing that “I consider the conduct of the police in this case to be abhorrent. The manner in which the inquiry was conducted fell so below what may be considered reasonable that it marks a new level of incompetence. I consider it my duty to remark on same so that no other case is dealt with in the same manner as the present case in future”. These are courageous words to describe the conduct of the police in the present case. What motivated the police to behave in such an abhorrent manner? We will never know unless a full fledged independent inquiry is held on this. The magistrate writes that “there are some very disturbing elements which were flagged in court in relation to the incompetent and abysmal manner in which the inquiry was conducted by the police and which led them to the initial theory of suicide”.

In a communiqué issued Sunday 16 October, the attorney general has indicated that “the commissioner of police will be advised to initiate an inquiry to the full extent of the law, including whether a potential offence of conspiracy to do an act wrongful to another person is warranted”. It will be interesting to see how the conspiracy investigation evolves. The two persons targeted by the communiqué are the district magistrate of Moka and the DPP. Already the DPP has taken “strong exception to any insinuation that any criminal offence may have been committed by any officer of the Office of the DPP (ODPP), who would allegedly be subjected to a police inquiry and to disciplinary proceedings”.

That the attorney chose to express concern about the leakage of a public document is his right. In so doing, he must be mindful of the independence of institutions like the judiciary or the ODPP. Neither the judiciary nor the ODPP can dance to the tune of the attorney general. It appears now that the priority of the attorney general and possibly that of the police commissioner will be to investigate how the report got leaked in the public domain. Instead, the focus should be on the investigation in a murder case which is being treated with what is perceived as levity. Let the Office of the DPP and the magistrate conduct an internal investigation in the leakage