Blog: Arrestable offences - Is Rama Sithanen pleading provocation and/or justification?

In a statement given to the Police on 19 February 2010, Rashid Imrith, President of the Government General Services Union, alleged that on 10^th February 2010, Rama Sithanen, then Minister of Finance and Deputy PM, called him twice on his cellular phone, abused him and make threats against him, thus making him fear for his own safety. If proven, this constitutes a criminal offence under the Information and Communication Technology Act (ICTA). Following Police investigations, Rama Sithanen was arrested on 16 June 2010, charged under the Act and released on bail.

Per press reports, other persons have previously been similarly charged.  However, although there is no indication that the Police did not follow the proper procedures, some argue that there has been political interference since Rama Sithanen fell out of favour with PM Ramgoolam at the last general elections held on 5 May 2010. For his part, the PM deny any interference in Police work but made it known that the law relating to arrestable offences should be reviewed on the ground that if a suspect does not represent a danger to society, there are different ways to treat him. The PM is right in the sense that, having regard to the seriousness of the allegation, a suspect with a police record may be treated ‘differently’ from a suspect with a clean record. For example, if a person is accused of rape and the suspect has already been previously convicted of rape, the Police would, in all probabilities, proceed to the immediate arrest of the suspect pending investigations. However, if the accused has a clean police record, rejects the allegation of rape against him and there is no evidence of violence, the Police have the discretion not to proceed to the immediate arrest of the suspect pending obtaining corroborating evidence even though this is an arrestable offence. However, to be on the safe side, the Police may proceed to the arrest anyway and there can be no law which can prevent the Police from making this decision. One therefore wonders how the law can be amended to prevent the Police from proceeding to an arrest in the case of arrestable offences unless the offences are classified as non-arrestable. Barrister Kishore Pertab makes a great deal of sense when he says that the law should not give the impression that there are two types of citizens (ref. « Une loi pour interdire les arrestations inutiles », l’Express 19 June 2010).

In the case against Rama Sithanen, the Police did not proceed to his immediate arrest further to the allegations of Rashid Imrith. The Police only decided to do so after their investigations when some form of corroborating evidence would presumably have been obtained. Therefore, Rama Sithanen has indeed been treated ‘differently’. Also, the Police did not object to bail. They could have done so on the ground that they believed there was a real risk that Rama Sithanen would call Rashid Imrith again on his cellular phone to intimidate him or carry out the threats he allegedly made against him. An ordinary person may not have been so lucky. Rama Sithanen has accepted that he was upset with what was reported in the daily paper Le Mauricien (of 9 February 2010) regarding the allegations of Rashid Imrith about the alleged earnings of Rs300,000 per month paid to foreign consultants. But both the Governement General Services Union (GGSU) led by Rashid Imrith and the Government Services Employees Association (GSEA) led by Radhakrishna Sadien were demanding the shelving of the Mansoor plan (or should it rather be the Sithanen’s Plan?) emanating from the Ministry of Finance said to have for object the freezing of recruitment and promotion in the Civil Service in general, which would allegedly affect the promotions of around 2,700 Civil Servants, per the Ministry’s « HR Guidelines » by circular bearing the reference ESTB/7/208.  This was the crux of the whole problem and not the issue of the remuneration of consultants which Mr Sithanen decided to seize upon. Did he merely use this as an excuse to give Mr Imrith a piece of his mind?

Since Gaëtan Sénèque, editor in chief of Le Mauricien, published the ‘offending’ allegations, he is under a duty to publish Rama Sithanen’s response so long as his paper is sold to the public.  In fact, he did publish Rama Sithanen’s rebuttal as follows : « Le VPM et ministre des Finances contredit le syndicaliste Rashid Imrith au sujet des salaires de Rs 300 000 par mois payés aux 17 consultants. Pour sa part, le président de la GGSU maintient que selon ses informations, des salaires de Rs 300 000 sont payés à des étrangers, dont un ressortissant canadien, présenté comme un spécialiste de l'informatique. » (Le Mauricien of 10 February 2010). But, having slept on it during the night of 9 & 10 February 2010, Rama Sithanen decided to call Mr Imrith twice on his cellular phone in the early morning of the 10^th allegedly to abuse, insult and threaten him but not Gaëtan Sénèque who was primarily responsible for the publication of Mr Imrith’s alleged lies.  A transcript of those two conversations would shed light as to the exact words spoken by Rama Sithanen and establish whether they amounted to abuse and threats.

Rama Sithanen does not deny the fact that he, not once but twice on 10^th February 2010, did call Rashid Imrith and had an argument with him with respect to his allegations.  Did Rama Sithanen do so in a fit of rage or was it something he was mulling over for quite some time?  After all, he did have a whole evening and night to reflect and calm down.  Why did Mr Sithanen choose to call Mr Imrith and for what purpose if not to intimidate him?  It appears that Rama Sithanen is arguing that, given what he considered to be false allegations formulated by Rashid Imrith as published in Le Mauricien dated 9 February 2010, he felt provoked and was quite justified in calling Rashid Imrith (and not Gaëtan Sénèque) twice the same day in order to give him (with pre-meditation) a piece of his mind. A piece of his mind it was indeed !