The Supreme Court of Mauritius has scheduled an appeal hearing for July 12-13, 2027, in the case of former Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam, who was accused of accepting large cash payments. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is appealing the Financial Crimes Division's (FCD) decision to drop charges against Ramgoolam due to alleged police irregularities. The FCD had ruled that the prosecution was not in the interest of justice.
The case dates back to February 6, 2015, when police seized approximately Rs 220 million in cash and foreign currencies from Ramgoolam's residence. Ramgoolam had pleaded not guilty to 23 counts of accepting cash payments exceeding the threshold allowed by the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act (FIAMLA). The DPP had immediately expressed intention to contest the FCD's decision, deeming it "manifestly erroneous in law."
The DPP's appeal, lodged on June 26, 2026, comprises 14 grounds, arguing that the FCD misapplied principles related to abuse of process and gave excessive weight to certain defense arguments. The DPP also claims that the FCD underestimated the public interest in pursuing financial crimes under FIAMLA, particularly given Ramgoolam's status as a politically exposed person.
A key point of contention is the affidavit from Dufry, which the FCD considered should have prompted further investigations. However, the DPP argues that the court contradicted itself by dismissing the affidavit as inadmissible hearsay while using it to assess investigative shortcomings. The DPP also disputes the significance attributed to dropped provisional charges and media articles.
The debate centers on the threshold for determining abuse of process and whether the FCD's findings justified dropping the charges. The DPP maintains that halting a trial should be an exceptional measure, reserved for situations where no other solution can ensure a fair trial. The DPP argues that the circumstances cited by the FCD did not meet this criterion.
The case raises broader questions about the integrity of investigations and the balance between prosecutorial discretion and judicial oversight. Ramgoolam's case has significant implications for Mauritius' efforts to combat financial crimes and ensure accountability among public officials. The Supreme Court's decision will provide clarity on these issues.
During the two-day hearing, the Supreme Court will examine whether the irregularities identified by the FCD justified dropping the charges against Ramgoolam. The court's decision will have far-reaching consequences, not only for Ramgoolam but also for the broader framework of prosecuting financial crimes in Mauritius.
Key points
- The Supreme Court of Mauritius will hear the DPP's appeal against the FCD's decision to drop charges against Navin Ramgoolam in July 2027.
- The case involves allegations of police irregularities and abuse of process in the investigation into Ramgoolam's acceptance of large cash payments.
- The DPP argues that the FCD's decision to drop charges was "manifestly erroneous in law" and that the prosecution is in the public interest.
