If the DPP admits to having a divergent point of view on certain of the conclusions of the magistrate of the intermediate court in the “Constituency Clerk” case, he nevertheless considers that they are not “perverse”. This case, he said, rested on the credibility of the main witness, in this case Simla Kistnen.

The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) will not appeal the intermediate court's verdict in the “Constituency Clerk” case. He made this known in a press release published yesterday, Monday June 10, 2024, i.e. 11 days after the judgment.

On May 30, 2024, magistrate Anusha Rawoah gave the benefit of the doubt to former Minister of Commerce Yogida Sawmynaden, damaging the credibility of the main witness, in this case Shakuntala Kistnen, better known as Simla, the widow of Soopramanien Kistnen, former MSM agent whose charred body was found on October 18, 2020, in a cane camp in Telfair, Moka. Assessing the credibility of witnesses in a criminal trial is always a matter for the court, he said.

He reassures the public “that the prosecution left no stone unturned in seeking to prove its case”. The DPP's office adds that it relied on all relevant information and evidence contained in the police file submitted to it. In the case of Yogida Sawmynaden, he points out, the prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the main witness, Simla Kistnen. However, this whole affair revolved around the credibility of the main witness.

According to the DPP, the decision of magistrate Anusha Rawoah to strike out the two accusations against the former Minister of Commerce – “forgery in a private writing” and “Making use of a forged private writing” – is “essentially a factual finding” . He recalls that the magistrate noted several inconsistencies in the testimony of the main witness. One of the inconsistencies concerns the affidavit that Simla Kistnen swore to.

For the DPP, “everyone can have their own interpretation as to whether an inconsistency is significant or not”. However, what matters, he said, is the magistrate's conclusion. Because she had the clear advantage of evaluating the behavior of the witnesses who testified before her. For the DPP, “an appellate court will be slow to reverse the findings of the learned Magistrate in the absence of clear perversity in his assessment of the facts”.

The DPP's office says that “while it has a divergent assessment of some of the findings, it is not convinced that they were necessarily perverse.” Thus, he is of the opinion that “there are insufficient grounds to appeal”. For these reasons, he does not intend to contest the judgment of the intermediate court dated May 30, 2024. Yogida Sawmynaden was accused of having committed forgery by completing the “constituency clerk” form dated January 28, 2020, stating therein that Simla Kistnen was employed as a “constituency clerk” from January 2020. When she was not employed as such. He was also accused of having used the said document. He pleaded not guilty during his trial and was defended by Messrs Raouf Gulbul and Mamade Boccus.

Yogida Sawmynaden: “justice has triumphed”

Former Minister of Commerce, Yogida Sawmynaden, spoke to Défi Quotidien on Monday evening. “I took note of the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions today (Editor's note, yesterday) and it is a real relief for everyone,” he said.

He says he thanks God, his family, his two lawyers, Me Raouf Gulbul and Me Mamade Aleem Bocus. “They did a remarkable job throughout the trial. » The deputy for constituency no. 8 (Moka/Quartier-Militaire) recalls that the case started three years ago: “It all started with a false affidavit sworn by Ms. Simla Kistnen in Court and a 'Private Prosecution' . Although the first Private Prosecution was rejected by the Court, they insisted on filing a second one. A formal charge was then filed. »

According to the former Minister of Commerce, “in court, we saw to what extent they hatched a plot just to harm me. 'Pou zet labou lor dimounn ek pu fer bann an egasion ki pa bizin. You can find out what happens in this world and how it is that people are afraid. Mo panse ena enn lalwa pou sa’”.
Yogida Sawmynaden says she respects all institutions. “Sakenn fer so travay. I don't know what you're talking about. Mwa mo na pa pou al pli lwin,” he emphasizes.

The former Minister of Commerce once again wanted to thank all his constituents and all those who supported him “during this long fight”. “Today is victory. Justice has triumphed. And as the saying goes: patience is bitter fruit but its fruit is sweet,” he concludes.

Me Raouf Gulbul: “It’s a considered decision”

Asked for a reaction, Me Raouf Gulbul maintains that “it is a good decision
thoughtful.” He says his client is happy that “justice has been done”. While explaining that “justice was done in public and the judgment was pronounced in public”. For him, we must “accept the verdict”.

According to Me Gulbul, “despite all the 'forcing' by Rama Valayden and the lawyers commonly known as the 'Avengers', who tried to force the DPP to appeal, the DPP's decision not to pursue this case is justified, because the lady (Editor's note: Simla Kistnen) was not credible. His testimony in court was riddled with lies. However, I call on attorney Rama Valayden, and all that remains of the 'Avengers,' to accept the Court's verdict.” According to the lawyer, “the 'Constituency Clerk' affair was fabricated”.

Simla Kistnen: “I am very disappointed…”

Simla Kistnen says she is very disappointed by the DPP's decision. In a statement to Radio Plus, she maintained that she never worked for former minister Yogida Sawmynaden and never received a salary as Constituency Clerk. Referring to the inconsistencies noted in her version and her affidavit, she responds: “Sa lepok-la mo ti dan sok, kapav monn mal donn mo lanket. »
Simla Kistnen indicates that she will consult her lawyers to find out what procedure to follow before concluding: “Mo les lepep zize…”

Shakeel Mohamed: “A purely legal and considered decision”

Shakeel Mohamed commented on the DPP's decision, calling it “purely legal and considered.” According to him, the DPP “carefully considered the facts presented to him and probably carried out a risk assessment”. “He insisted on the fact that it is imperative to respect the decision of the magistrate because she is sovereign in her field,” he said.

Me Sanjeev Teeluckdharry: “We will study the reasons for the DPP”

“The 'Avengers' will meet to study the reasons given by the DPP. We will make a decision accordingly and decide whether to request a Judicial Review. »

Leave a reply below

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Contact Business

Captcha Code