The Tribunal Judiciaire de St Denis, which held its sittings in public, has already brought it to the public arena that such a request had been made by the French authorities and it has gone even further by blaming the Mauritian authorities for not collaborating. 

This week, Weekly sits down with Ritish Ramful, barrister and secretary general of the Labour Party, to shed light on the legal implications of the Franklin saga after all the confusion thrown around by the attorney general and the former minister of foreign affairs, Nando Bodha. We also take the opportunity to talk about the situation in the Labour Party today.

Let’s first have some clarity concerning the procedure of International Mutual legal Assistance and the request for extradition made by the French authorities in Reunion island.What are the channels of communication?

Prior to November 2022, there was no treaty between France and Mauritius on International Mutual Legal Assistance in criminal matters.In November 2022, Mauritius and France signed two treaties on Mutual Legal Assistance in criminal matters or on extradition.However, the two treaties have not yet been ratified by Mauritius and as such do not have force of law in the respective jurisdictions, for the time being.

Why are the authorities taking so long to ratify them, in spite of the increasing number of drug cases between the Mauritius and Reunion?

This is yet another indication that the Mauritian government has no interest in combatng narco traffickers.

What happens in that case?

In the absence of a legally enforceable treaty, France can ask for evidence-gathering in a related criminal enquiry from the Mauritian authorities through a procedure called ‘commission rogatoire’ and this according to article 734 of the French Code de Procédure Civile.

And how is this request made?

The request for a commission rogatoire is made through the diplomatic channel and as such the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Mauritius is made aware of the request and the latter would transmit it to the attorney general’s office, which is the central authority in Mauritius to entertain requests from a foreign state.

Once a request is forwarded to the attorney general, the latter under our Mutual Assistance In Criminal and Related Matters Act 2003 can either promptly grant the request, in whole or in part or under certain conditions; refuse the request, in whole or in part, on certain grounds; or postpone the on the ground that this may cause prejudice to the conduct of proceedings in Mauritius.

To a question by l’express, former Minister of Foreign Affairs Nando Bodha replied that the role of his ministry was to act almost as a mere messenger between foreign authorities requesting the help of the local authorities and the attorney general.  Is that the case or does the foreign minister make recommendations?

The decision to entertain the request rests with the attorney general.  However, if the advice of the minister of foreign affairs is sought on issues relating to international relations with the requesting state, this may be instrumental to the decision of the attorney general whether to refuse, accede or postpone the request.

«The president of the Tribunal Correctionnel de Saint Denis, Madame Caroline Meunier-Lemas, should be applauded for pointing out the lack of collaboration by the Mauritian authorities.  It is now for the French authorities and the Mauritian population to be provided with an explanation from the Mauritian authorities for their unresponsiveness and indifference in this matter.»   

So as foreign minister, was Bodha aware of the matter or not, in your opinion?

There is no doubt that the foreign minister in post at the time the request was made was aware of the nature of the request.

What is then the role of the attorney general?

The attorney general is, under our law, the sole authority to decide in his own discretion whether or not to entertain the request for the setting up of a commission rogatoire to gather evidence from a witness or potential suspect at the request of a foreign state.  If he accedes to the request, he applies to the Judge in Chambers for the setting up of the commission rogatoire.

Attorney General Maneesh Gobin says that he can’t breathe a word about Franklin’s case unless or until the French authorities give him permission to do so, what are the legal obligations that supposedly bind him to silence?

Section 20 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal and Related Matters Act provides that the request, the contents of the request or any document or its content sent in compliance with the request shall be privileged.  However, the same section of the law also provides that the contents shall remain privileged until they have been made public in the course of any proceedings.  The Tribunal Judiciaire de St Denis, which held its sittings in public, has already brought it to the public arena that such a request had been made by the French authorities and it has gone even further by blaming the Mauritian authorities for not collaborating.  It is my humble view therefore, in the light of the judgment, that there is no longer any legal impediment preventing the attorney general from disclosing the content of the request. I will go even further and say that he has now both a legal and moral obligation to explain the lack of collaboration of the Mauritian authorities.

How do you explain the silence of the French authorities, particularly the embassy to whom the president of your party sent a letter requesting them to take a stand?

The Traités d’entraide judiciaire et d’extradition signed in November 2022 will remain a dead letter if there is no willingness on the part of the parties to give effect to it.  Unfortunately, with the Franklin case, we appear to have started on a wrong note. Silence is not the solution.  The president of the Tribunal Correctionnel de Saint Denis, Madame Caroline Meunier-Lemas, should be applauded for pointing out the lack of collaboration by the Mauritian authorities.  It is now for the French authorities and the Mauritian population to be provided with an explanation from the Mauritian authorities for their unresponsiveness and indifference in this matter.  The Labour Party, through a letter of its president, demands an explanation in the public interest because precisely we are disgusted and appalled by the rampaging effect of drugs on the youth of this country.

«Those dissenting voices have had their bite at the cherry.  They were once at the forefront of the party and even ministers under the leadership of Dr Navin Ramgoolam.  At that time, they were worshipping him.  Since the last annual congress, the leader has engaged the party on a new course with a younger breed of politicians under the guidance of the more experienced members.»

How do you explain the silence of the Mauritian authorities?

Someone somewhere in the shadows must be pulling the strings, acting as a guardian angel for the drug barons. 

About the same topic, a photo of one of Franklin’s prête-noms circulated on social media and must have struck a chord as the attorney general called a press conference for no other apparent reason than to comment on it.  Later, the prime minister issued a legal communiqué threatening legal action against anyone who is “responsible for such highly condemnable, false and defamatory acts”. Shouldn’t people refrain from circulating such photos?

I will refer the prime minister to the famous saying: celui qui sème le vent, récolte la tempête [sow the wind and reap the whirlwind – Ed.]. I will remind him of his sensational display, under parliamentary immunity, when he was taking a malicious pleasure brandishing pictures of labour MPs with Bruneau Laurette during a public meeting and asking for justice in the Kistnen murder case.  Today, we can see the glaring truth.  His rhetoric about fighting drug barons is being called into question. Instead of making public threats, a public apology from him about the failure of his government to fight the proliferation of drugs in the country would be advisable.

In all this saga, it seems that Franklin’s assets were carefully hidden with the help of prête-noms. How exactly does a prête-nom work?

A prête-nom is a legal term that would characterise a situation where someone would use an intermediary to conclude a transaction.  It is normally used when the true owner wants his identity to be kept secret and the apparent owner would be the intermediary.  The true owner and the apparent owner would keep their contractual relationship secret by entering into a transaction called a ‘contre-lettre’. 

What is the point of having such a concept in the law? Doesn’t it encourage money laundering?

Such a transaction is legal so far as it reflects a legally binding transaction.  If the transaction is for an illegal purpose, purchasing property from proceeds of drugs, money laundering or corruption, then such a transaction is illegal and cannot be enforced in a court of law.

What purpose does a prête-nom in the law, other than encourage money laundering?

It was being frequently used in the past by some owners to evade taxes.

Precisely my point. So, what is the aim of the law anyway? If someone uses a prête-nom, doesn't that mean he has something to hide?

In contractual law, you cannot prevent two parties from binding themselves in a transaction secretly, provided it is not for an illegal purpose. You have similar provisions in France for example. This is why the burden rests on notaries to report any suspicious transactions.

A piece of news in l’express didn’t seem to have made many waves: the confirmed meeting between the prime minister and Franklin’s lawyer, Yatin Varma.  The meeting was followed by a surprise attack by Varma on his party and his leader. Your comment?

The question should be put to Varma but it is surely not a coincidence.

What in your opinion is the simple explanation of why Franklin has been getting away with it for so long?

The rot is setting in the country overall. There is no political will unfortunately from the MSM-led government to fight the narco-traffickers.  On the contrary, they are rolling out the red carpet for the drug lords.  The Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Financial Intelligence Unit, the Anti-Drug and Smuggling Unit and Integrity Reporting Services Agency have been sleeping on their laurels for years while the drug barons and their acolytes have been amassing great fortunes.  If it was not for the Tribunal Correctionnel de Saint Denis, we would probably still be lured by the words of the prime minister ‘that there is a feel good factor in the country’.

This interview was not supposed to be about politics but I can’t let you off without asking you about the situation in your party.  With so many dissenting voices, isn’t the party heading for an implosion?

Those dissenting voices have had their bite at the cherry.  They were once at the forefront of the party and even ministers under the leadership of Dr Navin Ramgoolam.  At that time, they were worshipping him and chanting the glory of the leader.  Since the last annual congress, the leader has engaged the party on a new course with a younger breed of politicians under the guidance of the more experienced members.  The wind of change is blowing across the party and it will take the time that it needs to take.  The time will come when Dr Navin Ramgoolam will also have to leave but it will be a disservice to the party if he quits without ensuring its future.