«If I wanted to interfere in cases, surely it would have been easier for me to wait for them to reach the DPP?s office?? Attorney General Rama Valayden?s rebuttal of accusations of interference in police matters caused an uproar he most probably didn?t foresee when he made what he says was a sarcastic comment.

Former Judge Robert Ahnee, clearly shocked by those words, expressed his ire through a letter sent to l?express that the DPP hasn?t reacted to the Attorney General?s claims that if he chose to interfere, he could.

The question is; can he? The short answer to that is...yes. Well, in theory at least. Because as says Maneesh Gobin, lawyer, former magistrate and former official at the DPP?s office, ?you can have the most stringent laws that guarantee independence of an institution but at the end of the day, it is the people that make the Institutions and not vice versa.?

So technically, because the Attorney General is the administrative boss of the DPP, the former could pick up his phone and give his opinion on any given matter or even ask for favours. As Gobin says, whether the holder of the office will act on it or not will depend on that particular person holding that office.

Rama Valayden, Attorney General, says emphatically that he doesn?t interfere in the work of the DPP?s office ?except when it concerns the administration of the office of the DPP.? A few months ago, he recounts, the office of the DPP needed a registry. ?I intervened because it is my job to make sure that all facilities are put at the disposal of the office of the DPP so that they can perform their duties.?

An official from the office of the DPP, who for obvious reasons, does not wish to be named, confirms, ?I have worked at the DPP for four years and I can tell you that I have always been able to work freely. I have never felt that there was any interference in my work or in the work of others. Except that everybody is aware that the officer accountable at the AG?s office is the Solicitor General, who acts like the Permanent Secretary to a ministry.?

So one can see where the demarcation line could get blurred. Yet Lord Mackay in his recommendations, compiled in what is known as the Mackay Report, following a Presidential Committee set up to examine and report upon the structure and operation of the Judicial system and legal professions in 1998, has urged that the office of the DPP, involved in criminal prosecution, be separated from the drafting section which is headed by a Parliamentary council.

The Privy Council in the case of Raju Mohit versus the DPP reiterated that the DPP was not subject to any control save that of the judiciary-meaning by that, that only the Supreme Court can review the DPP?s decision.

As it is now, the Attorney General?s office comprises of the Attorney General himself who is the principal legal advisor to the government, the Solicitor General (SG) who is the head of the State Law Office (SLO). The SG is also an extremely important professional advisor to the AG as his minister and to the whole of the government and in many aspects acts like the Permanent Secretary would to a ministry.

The problem is that the SLO also comprises of another unit known as the office of the Director of Public Prosecution; this unit doesn?t altogether function as a completely distinct unit at the moment because it is part of the AG office, although AG Rama Valayden says there is at the moment some attempt to ?find office space to house the office of the DPP so that can be also be physically distinct from the AG?s office.?

The Mackay report recommends that the distinction be taken a step further and suggests that the officers involved in the drafting of legislations and in advising the different ministries in law be involved solely in this business and that those involved in the prosecution of criminal cases, do just that. ?We are getting there but sometimes when there are big cases to be prosecuted, senior and experienced lawyers who are generally involved in drafting, will be asked to take over the cases?, says Rama Valayden.

Those same lawyers who work under the Solicitor General will be involved in civil cases against the State or in policy decisions regarding international affairs like Mauritius? claim to sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and Tromelin, for instance.

Also cases like the one involving Jacob Zuma where the South African police wanted to get hold of documents in possession of the ICAC, the decision whether to do so, was the sole discretion of the Attorney General. The same goes for matters of extradition like in the case of Hamuth.

The Privy Council in the case of Raju Mohit versus the DPP reiterated that the DPP was not subject to any control save that of the judiciary-meaning by that, that only the Supreme Court can review the DPP?s decision.

But what about before the DPP makes that decision? In principle, despite all the safeguards, the Attorney General if he chose to, could intervene in cases that have reached the DPP?

?The only time I would feel I could call the DPP would be in cases of national interest- I don?t have an example because there hasn?t been any such case as at now. I could give the DPP my point of view but what he does with it, is his own prerogative?, replies the Attorney General.

Before adding that ?in 2004 before anyone had known what would happen to the then minister Choonee, Paul Bérenger, then Prime minister, had already announced at a political rally that Choonee would be exonerated. I concur; it all depends on the people representing the institutions.?