The firm reactions of the acting Prime Minister, Paul Berenger and the Attorney General Gavin Glover as well as the observations of Kushal Lobine to the arrest manu militari of journalist Jasodanand are most welcome.

The arrest of journalist Jasodanand by a horde of police officers on a mere complaint by the son of a high official reminds us of the arrest by equally a horde of police officers of Ms. Rachna Seenauth a few years back on the ground that she had posted some comment on social media on the former prime minister, Pravin Jugnauth. At the time of the arrest of Ms. Seenauth the then government remained muted and did nor see in the arrest and the circumstances in which it was made any form of abuse.

The acting Prime Minister Paul Berenger has asked for a full report of the circumstances of the arrest of the journalist. He has also condemned the fact that an arrest was made without properly checking whether the complaint against the journalist revealed an arrestable offence. The acting Prime Minister and the whole government must be given credit for such a stand. No citizen should lose his liberty on mere complaints which at times are frivolous. Under the Pravin Jugnauth regime, the saga of quick arrests following complaints by ministers or followers of the party then in power, was a current phenomenon with the assistance of the Jagai Striking Team. The then so-called independent police were quick to react when ministers or high placed officials made complaints.

The principle of individual liberty is one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society and of human rights. Deprivation of liberty is a very serious matter and can only be justified if it is lawful and necessary. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] proclaims that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest. Article 9(1) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] is to the effect that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. Section  5 of our Constitution provides that “No person shall be deprived of his personal liberty save as may be authorised by law upon reasonable suspicion of having committed, or being about to commit, a criminal offence’”

As the law stands an arrest may be made if there is reasonable suspicion that a person has committed an offence. There is no magic yardstick to assess what reasonable suspicion amounts to. There has been several pronouncements by national courts and the European Court of Human Rights on the standard of reasonable suspicion. In a case decided in 1989, late Justice Ahnee and I held that a police officer effecting an arrest must take into consideration the totality of the circumstances including the explanations of the suspect and that, whatever suspicion the police may harbour against the suspect, should be weighed against any factors which tell in favour of the suspect. A total neglect of the explanations that the suspect may have to offer may well lead to the conclusion that the suspicion is not reasonable. “The ‘reasonable suspicion’ requirement is a valuable protection to the Community and it is an essential safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention. Hence, the police shall before, arresting a person satisfy itself that there do in fact exist reasonable grounds for suspicion of guilt”. [Magistrate (Ms.)Hamuth in a ruling].

What happened to journalist Jasodanand once more indicates the urgent necessity of having the enactment of a Police and Criminal Justice Act. In the Police and Criminal Justice Bill as drafted in 2013, it is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum that the main objects of the Bill are to bring together in one enactment, subject to certain exceptions, the provisions which relate to the exercise by police officers of the powers to stop, enter, search, seize, arrest and detain; and the treatment and questioning of detainees; provide for a statutory basis for provisional informations; and to betterguarantee the citizen’s constitutional rights to liberty, protection of property, freedom of movement and protection of the law. Section 17 of the Bill in enacted provides A police officer shall not arrest a person on the basis of the mere allegation of a third party unless he has carried out the necessary investigations to verify certain conditions provided in Bill, namely reasonable suspicion that an individual is about to commit or has committed an offence. There are also provisions that are a guide to police officers on the necessity of an arrest. The Bill if enacted would  have protected citizens from abusive arret.

Many citizens of the country do not realise what freedom means until they are deprived of it.