Constituency Clerk case: these points which remain unanswered

The judgment rendered last Thursday in the “Constituency Clerk” case, involving the former Minister of Commerce, Yogida Sawmynaden, prosecuted on two counts, still arouses strong reactions. According to members of the legal profession, the judgment, which gave Yogida Sawmynaden the benefit of the doubt, leaves many aspects unresolved.

For certain jurists, like Me Sanjeev Teeluckdharry, lawyer for Simla Kistnen, this case is far from closed. He recalls that a civil case claiming damages of Rs 50 million from Simla Kistnen against Yogida Sawmynaden will be heard before the Supreme Court this Thursday, June 6. In this case, he plans to question Yogida Sawmynaden in court because he was never questioned in the “Constituency Clerk” case.

Another outstanding point concerns the key witness, Sanjay Kariah, the Constituency Clerk of Pravind Jugnauth, who had testified during the judicial inquiry to confirm that Simla Kistnen had never been Constituency Clerk. “Why was this witness not called by the prosecution? » asks the lawyer

Another “anomaly”, according to Me Teeluckdharry, is that the accused’s defense was taken into consideration without him coming to testify. “Statements out of court are only taken into consideration when they concern confessions and confessions,” he emphasizes.

For the lawyer, there would be grounds for appeal because the assessment of the facts is confusing when the Court affirms that there was no harm to the State. The harm lies in the disqualification of Simla Kistnen from obtaining assistance as a self-employed person during the COVID-19 period, because she was on the payroll as Constituency Clerk. There is also prejudice to the State due to false declarations to the MRA and fictitious deductions of Rs 15,000 as expenses (salary of the Constituency Clerk).

Lawyer Roshi Bhadain also raised anomalies regarding the judgment in a video on his Facebook page on Sunday. He pointed out that witness policeman number 1 was not aware of the incoming calls on the accused's mobile phone. According to him, this calls into question the quality of the investigation carried out by the police because they did not verify the incoming calls.