In a memorable homily on human weaknesses and the reasons for our attitude and behaviour in given situations, Martin Luther King said: ?On some positions, cowardice asks the question : Is it safe?; expediency asks the question : Is it politic?; and vanity asks the question: Is it popular?. But conscience asks the question: Is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular. But one must take it because it is right.? And it is now right for all those people who, by acts of commission or omission, wittingly or unwittingly, managed to destroy the reputation of a murdered man and callously trampled on the feelings of his grieving family, to apologise fully to them.

The savage butchery of Gerald Lagesse on 11th February 2005 showed all the aspects of human behaviour that the pastor of non violence preached in his sermon. We saw extreme cowardice from the robbers who not only murdered an innocent man in cold blood but then systematically proceeded to destroy his hitherto unblemished character.

The bank adopted an expedient position and did nothing to protect the reputation of their employee by maintaining an incongruous silence; they justified their silence by a sudden conversion to law and order principles that stipulated a ?no comment? position during an ongoing police investigation, even when the police was busy leaking all sorts of damaging and ultimately false information about the murdered man.

Our ?free? press showed the vanity that comes naturally to most journalists and reported faithfully the tissue of lies peddled by the murder suspects without any critical comments and without any apparent regard for the feelings of the victim?s families. Readers will of course be aware of the ?Pink Panther? series made famous by Peter Sellers; the similarity between the bumbling Clouseau and the manner of some real police investigations is striking.

In the MCB case, the incompetence of the police was evident even before the bank had opened its doors. Monvoisin?s mother called the police twice and told them that her son would be taking part in a bank robbery that morning and helpfully gave them the number of Sotrooghan?s car which was going to be used as the get away vehicle. As we now know, nothing of any benefit was done by the police and the robbery took place successfully and an innocent man was murdered.

Self-confessed robber

During the four days following the murder, everyone mentioned Lagesse?s nice qualities as a person and his devotion to his family. Ruhumatally is arrested on the 16th and everything changes. All of a sudden, the words of a self-confessed robber monopolise the headlines and many people transform themselves into criminological experts and talk forcefully about an ?inside? job. No one protests about the fact that those still at large now know from the newspapers? irresponsible reporting exactly what the defence case will be and it is not at all surprising that, after his arrest, Vinesen confirms Ruhumatally?s story about Lagesse?s alleged complicity in the robbery.

But Vinesen has been watching too many Bollywood movies and he spins himself into a ludicrous knot with his stories about Big boss and 007. Eventually, the so-called mystery unravels and what should have been obvious from the beginning if the police had used its detective skills properly and professionally is now obvious:there was no inside job, Lagesse had behaved entirely professionally and even in his death has shown himself to be a far better man than his killers or his employers.

I do not consider myself as an extremely intelligent person nor am I an expert in solving crimes. But I am sure many other people made the same right deductions from the initial ?confessions? of the suspects and rapidly came to the conclusion that Lagesse had nothing to do with the robbery. For the sake of clarity, let me recall some of the salient points:

1. Lagesse had rarely worked at the MCB headquarters where the robbery took place and it is therefore unlikely that he would have been able to plan the robbery in the perfect manner it was achieved.

2. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of criminology is aware of the excessive vanity of criminals:the way they look, what they wear, their jewellery,etc. No real criminal would ever ask an accomplice to break his nose as Ruhu-matally alleged Lagesse asked him to do; it simply never happens like that.

3. Ruhumatally is an experienced criminal and would therefore take all the necessary precautions to ensure that he leaves as few forensic traces of his presence at the scene of crime as possible; But he expects us to believe that a macho criminal like him will meekly obey Lagesse?s orders to leave as many fingerprints as possible!

4. Where is the robbery of the century planned? According to Vinesen, during leisurely walks to the bus stop or to Caudan with Lagesse in full view of the crowds in those areas. These four points alone were sufficient to move the spotlight away from Lagesse and they were apparent within the first fortnight following the crime; why did it take the police so long to come to what seems the obvious conclusion?

I believe the MCB hierarchy and the police are both guilty of the worst type of expediency that sends to the scaffold the reputation of an innocent man in a desperate attempt to cover up their own pitiful inadequacies. The relentless and uncritical press reporting of Lagesse?s alleged complicity has made us lose sight of the real reasons which allowed the criminals to commit their crimes with such ease. By focusing our attention on the possibility of an ?inside? job whilst knowing very well that the dead man cannot defend his impugned integrity, our eyes have strayed from the two institutional failures that allowed the crime to take place and led to the death of Gerald Lagesse :

1. The amateurish and highly inadequate security system which allowed three strangers to walk unchallenged into the most secure area of the bank, steal a large amount of money, kill an employee, and walk out unchallenged and bloodstained.

2. The wholly inadequate response of the police to the two phone calls from the mother of one of the robbers before the crimes took place. We will all have plenty to say about the robbers between now and the trial; but let us never forget the failures of the bank and the police that facilitated the crime in the first place.

The lack of a proper security system puts the health and safety of the bank?s employees in jeopardy and the unsatisfactory response of the police to emergency calls is symptomatic of our discontent with their consistently poor performance.

Who should apologise to the Lagesse? It is terrible that a newspaper article has to urge people to do this when an apology should be a small but decent gesture that comes spontaneously from the people who have hurt the Lagesse family. The MCB should apologise for not having a proper security system that could have possibly saved the life of Gerald Lagesse; it should also apologise for its craven silence when the integrity of its murdered employee was being questioned on a daily basis. It is simply not good enough to claim that the bank has to stay silent during an ongoing police investigation because that is merely a cop out.

(I was going to ask the Bank of Mauritius to apologise for the extreme latitude awarded to the MCB to conduct its affairs with an independence bordering on the insouciance but that unaccountable lot will probably seek a gagging order on me!)

The police should apologise for its lack of effective action following the two phone calls from Monvoisin?s mother; it should apologise for the unprofessional leaks to the press from unconscionable and corrupt officers which contributed to the destruction of the murdered man?s reputation and the misery of his family. The apology should come from a rarely seen Commissioner or from the minister for Police who has remained suspiciously silent.

As for the press, what can I say? I have already written on press sensationalism and the cavalier destruction of people?s reputations? The time is overdue for the press to adopt a position that is right, humane, and at last provides some comfort for the family of the main victim.

As for the robbers, they will all apolgise profusely to the Lagesse family, the court, the judge, the nation, the whole world, and all the gods of all religions in the hope of receiving a lenient sentence. I will not believe a word of it and neither I suspect will the Lagesse family.

<B>R.A.J.