navin-ramgoolam-police

The purpose of the Mauritian Police Force is supposed to be: “To uphold the law fairly and firmly, to prevent crime and bring to justice those who break the law. To protect the community and act with common sense, integrity and sound judgement…”. In his classic allegorical novel, Animal Farm, George Orwell warns us that even the most idealistic leadership can become irredeemably corrupt over time. The surest evidence for this is when the de facto law of the land has degenerated to: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Is Mauritius sliding down this slippery slope?

With lightning speed the police responded to the complaint Nandanee Soornack (Labour activist) made on 10th December 2012. The acccused, Yogida Sawmynaden (MSM activist), was questioned, arrested and provisionally charged with a crime that doesn’t even exist in law merely eight days later.   The farce only ended when the the Director of Public Prosecutions intervened, ruling that there was “no case to answer”. Contrast this with a complaint first lodged over two and a half ago…

[Source for photo: kotzot.com]

On 26th June 2010, Dr Richard L Munisamy made a declaration (OB732/10) to the police at Pointe aux Canonniers station accusing Mr Sahrat Dutt Lallah, CEO of Mauritius Telecom (MT), of contravening Section 29 of the Data Protection Act (DPA) 2004.

29. Unlawful disclosure of personal data
(1) Any data controller who, without lawful excuse, discloses personal data in any manner that is incompatible with the purposes for which such data has been collected shall commit an offence.

As the police appeared to be doing nothing, on 28th June 2011, Dr Munisamy lodged a complaint with the Data Protection Office. The DPO opened an inquiry “to investigate any potential unlawful disclosure of the confidential database… to an unauthorised third party, namely an active political party”. The decision of the Commissioner was delivered on 12th June 2012. It declared that “there is evidence on record to suggest that an offence may have been committed under the DPA. The matter is thus being transferred to the police for further investigation and prosecution if required.”

To date, the police still appear to be doing absolutely nothing.  This begs the question: are the police really impartial or have they become a political tool of the Labour party? If so then isn’t it time to call the pigs to account?

DPO Cover

DPO p1

DPO p2