It has never occurred in our judicial history that a politician, namely a minister of State in the office of an attorney-general, summoned the Director of public prosecutions (DPP) to his office for a confidential meeting. This is contrary to Section 72 (6) of our Constitution on the functions of the DPP, which stipulates: “In the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by this section, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority”. So the meeting between Rama Valayden and the DPP shocked many people and has created lots of doubts about the reliability of our judiciary system.

Rajesh Ramlogun was not charged with any crime. He was a suspect involved somehow or other in the double murder case in Lallmatie. He was at worst a mere suspect and yet he died in police custody. According to the autopsy report, by both the government and private pathologists, death occurred due to cerebral haemorrhage probably caused by blows. There were bruises all over his body and on the soles of his feet. The press published the photograph of the dead body showing clearly the bruises and scratch marks to the general public.

The public has seen those bruises and scratch marks on the body of Rajesh Ramlogun in the press photograph except four hospital doctors who did not notice those bruises whilst examining Ramlagun. If that is not a cover-up, how do we explain the statements of those four hospital doctors in comparison with the autopsy report? One thing that is certain is that Rajesh Ramlagun did not die a natural death in police custody.

According to his widow, he was arrested at the family home in a healthy state by four police officers and brought back home 48 hours later as a dead corpse in a zipped bag. Even, believe it or not, the minister of Health is satisfied with the examination of the four hospital doctors on Ramlagun’s death, under suspicious circumstances.

The recent statistics compiled by the Complaints Investigation Bureau (CIB) concerning complaints against the police and police brutalities make us think. In 2005, 496 complaints against the police were registered, i.e. more than one case per day. Concerning police brutality, the CIB recorded 159 complaints last year, i.e. one case every three days. So far there has never been any follow-up on police brutality at all by the authority concerned. By only filing these cases sine die, is that a cover-up in disguise?

To get a confession by coercion is not a novelty these days for our police. All it means is that the real culprits are always out, laughing at the stupidity and inefficiency of our police force. Someone has already said it: “We need Colombo not Rambo to investigate crime in this country.” Once a confession is made, it is very difficult for a court of law to believe in the person’s innocence. It makes us wonder how many innocents are locked up just because of forced confessions. Let’s hope that the attorney-general takes good note.

It is inconceivable that seven officers of the MCIT have been arrested, detained and bailed out whereas the chief of the team is still free. This is giving the public the perception that a big cover-up may be going on. In law, the chief of a team must carry the can should anything go wrong among the team members.

The commissioner of police has a duty to inform the public why he has not used the power of arrest vested in him and his officers to arrest Raddhoa. Is there political interference to cover up something ? If we recalled the MBC news bulletin that broadcast the death of Rajesh Ramlagun due to alcohol fits, as opposed to the autopsy report of the pathologist, how on earth can we trust our institutions? Even the Human Rights Inquiry Report has revealed that there was foul play on the circumstances of Ramlagun’s death in custody. And yet ASP Raddhoa is still giving press conferences in public contrary to the rules and regulations of Standing Orders of all disciplined forces and civil servants.