?We apply the Law firmly but fairly and politely, and we must be seen to do so.? This is the mission statement of the Mauritius Police Force. However, the death of yet another person in police custody would contradict this very oath. Acting as judge, jury and executioner hardly represents a fair and polite police force. From 1991 to 2002, 28 people have died in police custody. While it is easy to concentrate on the individuals who act in a reprehensible manner, it is difficult to ignore the institutional problems that lie at the dark heart of the police service in Mauritius.

The key development, in the last two decades or so, has been the evolution of the human rights culture. Like never before, people are now concerned about the humane treatment of fellow citizens. As usual, the authorities show absolute contempt for it. Thus, the United States can justify its ?extraordinary renditions? while the Mauritian police can disregard brutality with a shrug of the shoulders. Despite the death of Kaya in 1999, the force has not learnt any lessons. People continue to collect the corpses of family members from police cells. Since 1979, 41 people have died in custody.

Unfortunately, this suggests that torture is an almost routine practice among the upholders of the law. Worse is the pride displayed by officers with a reputation for heavy-handed tactics. This has allowed people like Raddhoa to strut around in macho glory, assuming an almost superhero status.

However, the Mauritian police are not alone in operating above the law. In the US, it is not unusual for the police to deliver summary justice. In the dictatorships of Central Asia, the situation is even worse, while in the Middle East or Africa, repressive regimes use the police as an extension of the government, to intimidate and coerce the population. During the seventies and eighties, the neo-Nazi National Security States in Latin America carried out numerous disappearances and various odious crimes, many of which are still unaccounted for to this day. In European states, the police can often operate outside the law. After all, the French security forces blew up a Greenpeace boat in the eighties, causing the death of one activist. The regular demonstrations that have accompanied G8 or WTO meetings have often been accompanied by baton charges and even death in some cases.

Recently, Ireland was hit by a major police scandal, exposing corruption and abuse of power on a large scale. A local policeman tried to frame a family with whom he had fallen out. The subsequent inquiry revealed the intricate conspiracy, which involved threatening and menacing behaviour towards the family for the mere reason of having fallen out of favour with the police. A few years ago, during a peaceful demonstration of ?Reclaim the Streets?, a grassroots activist organisation, the police assaulted the protestors and even onlookers. It was an unprovoked attack, which resulted in court cases and suspensions. The behaviour of the police, especially in the former case, gave rise to major changes in legislation and the appointment of a police ombudsman.

Complaints board criticised

The ombudsman was established to conduct independent investigation into allegations of abuse by the police. The previous system involved a complaints board which came under severe criticism by civil rights campaigners. The ICCL (Irish Council of Civil Liberties) pointed that, out of a record 1,405 complaints received by the board in 2002, 1,047 were either ?dismissed or withdrawn?. Only 31 cases were further investigated and two resulted in a caution and nine received some form of admonition from the police commissioner. This low rate of conviction, which represented only 2% of all complaints, discredited the board in the eyes of the public. The office of ombudsman was only created in 2004 as part of a reform of the police service.

However, the minister fudged the issue and produced an ombudsman who was not granted full independence from the police force. The problem identified with the police was a siege mentality. An antagonistic relationship developed between the police and the public. This problem is very relevant for Mauritius, where the police and society are mutually suspicious of each other. No real efforts have ever been made towards community policing, which could go a long way towards improving the tense and frosty relations.

Furthermore, no effort to establish a police ombudsman or the equivalent of an independent inquiry body (the complaints board is irrelevant) has ever been mooted. The police have been allowed to become a law unto themselves. Reports of torture and several deaths in police custody have been inadequately investigated, further undermining trust in the force.

With the latest death and the public baying for blood, it would not be surprising for the case to stop at the seven arrested policemen. But it is the entire reform of the police system that is needed, not occasional convictions. The government should be reminded that they never get a clean slate from Amnesty International?s human rights report. In a study of SADC countries, published in 2002, Mauritius is often mentioned in the same breath as Mozambique, Malawi and South Africa for gross misconduct by the police, including torture and deaths in custody. Article 4 of the Convention against Torture clearly states that each state party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. Mauritius, a signatory to treaty, has to date ignored Article 4.

This death should finally make the police and the authorities realise that it is one too many. There is a real risk of a total breakdown of relations between the police and society, as we saw in February 1999, if the authorities do not act now. Only reform of the system can stop the trend within the force. It is not a case of a few rotten apples, but the whole basket might be rotten.