It is a well-known fact and almost a universal practice for investigating authorities like the police to offer reward money to track criminals. The arrest of a high-ranking police officer on suspicion of having pocketed reward money destined for informants, raises once again the question of whether there is any measure of control on how reward money is managed and whether such funds are regularly audited .It is not the first time that reward money becomes a news item with allegations of impropriety against police officers.

In 2021, the now defunct Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) had opened an investigation into one case involving the payment of Rs 700,000 as reward money by the Anti-Drug and Smuggling Unit (ADSU) to one or more informant/s, which led to the record drug haul of 135 kilos of heroin dissimulated in cylinders imported from South Africa in March 2017. Following an application by ICAC, the Judge in Chambers ordered the Commissioner of Police to submit to the ICAC “all data, information and documents and files in relation to the award of reward money in connection to the case bearing OB901/17 ADSU”.

The judge ordered the commissioner of police to submit to the director general of ICAC the recommendation for the reward money; a voucher signed by the Manager Financial Operation including a final certifi- cate from the police; the written approval of the police commissioner; acquittances on which officers claiming for reward to infor- mants, have acknowledged receipt; and the secret receipts signed by informants on receipt of reward money. Apparently, there were no acquittances available.

Mutual trust

Concerning the informant’s receipts, a senior police officer explained that: bringing the issue of payment of Reward to informants in the public domain is inappropriate. It may have serious repercussion and cause unwanted collateral damages to the organization and operations [presumably of ADSU]. Even parliamentary questions on this matter have been carefully replied. According to police sources, payment to informants is made on mutual trust. It is clear that keeping the identity of informants is very serious and vital.

There might have been an overriding public interest for ICAC to request for documents on reward money and for the judge to order release of the informant’s name. In the absence of a published reasoned judgment on why the Standing Order on the confidentiality of the identity of an informer had to be released, it is not clear what that overriding public interest was, unless ICAC suspected a corruption or money laundering offence.

The source of the reward money is by way of an allocation of funds by the government. In December 2021, the former Prime Minister Pravin Jugnauth stated in the Parliament that the police department was allocated Rs 5,502,520 as reward to informants for the period July 2016 to June 2017. According to him, the money was instrumental in assisting the police in the fight against drug trafficking and other crimes. When former Police Commissioner Servansing put a stop to the practice of reward money the ADSU and other police departments felt demotivated to carry on with the combat against drugs and other crimes. The practice was introduced by former police commissioner DIP.

Payment to informers is made on mutual trust. It is obvious that under the relevant Standing Order made under the Police Act, a police officer who has remitted reward money to an informer should not reveal the name of the informer. Whilst it is important to keep the identity of the informants confidential, the allocation and auditing of the funds should not be shrouded in opacity. Standing Order 122 of the Standing Orders of the Police Force sets out the procedure to be followed in relation to reward money. Paragraph 5 of that Standing Order states that the officer receiving the funds should certify on a specific voucher that he has the payment requested and that he has remitted the money to the informer. The officer concerned must certify as follows: “I certify that the informer has been paid by me”. That voucher is then returned to the Manager Financial Operations. Paragraph 6 of Standing Order 122 makes it clear that under no circumstances should the informer’s receipt be attached to the voucher or shown thereon.

Standing Orders are a valuable document containing directives to the police force and are done under section 6 of the Police Act that reads:

(1) Subject to this Act, the Commissioner may make standing orders and give admi- nistrative directions to be observed by police officers in the performance of their duties.

(2) Every police officer shall obey all lawful orders given verbally or in writing, and shall comply with standing orders and administrative directions issued, by the Commissioner.

It is the duty of the Commissioner of Police to see to it that the reward money does not become special purpose vehicle for some corrupt police officer to make money on the back of informants. In the case of the high ranking officer who is under arrest did he follow the Standing Orders on the payment of reward money and if he did, was the appropriate documents remitted to the Commissioner? How is it that the high ranking officer managed to pocket such a large amount of money without being detected ?

In some countries there is a special committee that deals with the issue of reward money. In Mauritius, it is the Commissioner of Police who gives the green light for such payments. There has to be an element of trust in the system and in the people responsible for its effective operation. To avoid dishonest police officers from making money out of reward money with, at times, the complicity of the informant, the money should be awarded to the informant by the Commissioner or another high ranking police officer in presence of an independent witness like an usher of the Supreme Court, for example. The funds allocated for reward money should be audited annually and a report submitted to the office of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance.

The order obtained by the director general of ICAC raises the serious question whether the police commissioner will need to operate under the Damocles sword of ICAC before approving and dishing out reward money. It should be presumed that the police are acting honestly in dealing with reward money and in compliance with police rules on reward money. The very purpose of awarding reward money is to obtain information, which otherwise would not have become available, and would lead to the detection of serious offences and ultimately to the arrest of the culprit/s. What purpose would it serve to make the information relating to how much has been paid and who is/are the recipient/s serve?