The arrest of former prime ministers is significant in any democracy. When two major figures, Navin Ramgoolam and Pravind Jugnauth, face arrest under different conditions, the question of equality before the law arises. One authorities dramatically arrested in 2015, while the other faced a calm procedure in 2025. This contrast raises questions about how justice applies based on circumstances and the individuals involved.
Two Arrests, Two Contradictory Approaches
Navin Ramgoolam’s 2015 arrest remains unforgettable. After losing the 2014 elections, the CCID arrested him and took him to the police station. His lawyers struggled to meet him, suggesting the authorities wanted to humiliate him publicly.
In contrast, Pravind Jugnauth and his wife, Kobita, experienced a calm arrest by the FCC in 2025. They were escorted without incident and even accompanied by their daughter. Their lawyer, Shamila Sonah-Ori, joined them from the start. This respectful treatment raised questions about fairness.
A Two-Tiered Justice System?
Observers criticize a double standard in justice. Lawyer Prakash Bheeroo notes that in 2015, ICAC handled corruption cases, not the FCC. He also points out that Ramgoolam’s arrest occurred under Sir Anerood Jugnauth’s regime, who had publicly planned it.
In Pravind Jugnauth’s case, things were different. The new government reformed the FCC, reducing its power. Also, the authorities lacked enough evidence to charge Jugnauth, so they released him.
Former police inspector Ranjit Jokhoo agrees, stating that arrested individuals should immediately contact a lawyer and inform their family. In 2015, the authorities didn’t apply this fairly.
The Weekend Court and the Late Ruling Controversy
A key controversy was the Weekend Court’s decision to sit until midnight for Pravind Jugnauth’s bail hearing. Normally, this process takes several days:
- The defense files a motion.
- A date is set to hear arguments.
- The suspect waits in detention.
In Jugnauth’s case, everything sped up. The defense filed by 12:30 p.m., and hearings continued until 5 p.m. After a break, the court reconvened in the evening and delivered its verdict at 11:30 p.m., six hours later than usual.
This sparked reactions. Lawyer Imtihaz Mamoojee, with 30 years of experience, had never seen a court sit until midnight. A former magistrate was surprised by the rapid decision, especially since officials involved in the lengthy hearings received double pay on Sundays.
Towards a Reform of the Judicial System?
Pravind Jugnauth’s case exposes flaws in Mauritius’s judicial system. Some lawyers argue for reform to ensure equal treatment, regardless of social or political status.
Senior Counsel Rishi Pursem says that if expedited justice becomes the norm, it should apply to everyone, not just the powerful. Another lawyer questions why the magistrate took six hours to write the judgment instead of issuing a brief decision.
Other lawyers worry that this late ruling sets a precedent. In the future, any citizen could demand the same treatment, disrupting the judicial process.
Conclusion: Truly Fair Justice?
Pravind Jugnauth’s 2025 arrest contrasts sharply with Navin Ramgoolam’s 2015 arrest. It highlights disparities in how justice is applied in Mauritius. The case raises important questions about the fairness of judicial institutions and their ability to treat all citizens equally, regardless of political rank.
Some see this as progress toward fairer justice, while others see a two-tiered system that favors elites. Reform of the judicial system is necessary to ensure equality and transparency.
For article publication inquiries, feel free to get in touch.