Court Set to Rule on Navin Ramgoolam’s Motion Regarding Constitutional Rights

On September 11, judges Razia Janoo-Jaunbocus and Abdool Raheem Tajoodeen from the Financial Crimes Division (FCD) of the Intermediate Court will decide on a motion filed by former Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam.

Ramgoolam contended that certain provisions of the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act (FIAMLA) infringe upon his constitutional rights in the ongoing legal proceedings against him concerning cash payment limitations.

During arguments regarding this motion yesterday, August 1, the defense team, which includes Senior Counsel Gavin Glover, along with Yanilla Moonshiram, Shaukat Oozeer, and Nabiil Moolna, raised concerns about property rights attributed to their client.

Glover emphasized the need for clarity regarding the date mentioned in the charges, stating, “The date is rather uncertain, as indicated in the indictment.

There must be sufficient precision to regulate the citizen, to allow for appropriate conduct, as discussed by the Sunday Times.”

He argued that there have been no allegations against Ramgoolam since the seizure of cash at his residence in 2015, thereby suggesting there is no evidence to support any claims against him.

Glover further criticized Section 5 of the FIAMLA, which mandates the confiscation of his client’s cash, arguing that this is unreasonable since Ramgoolam has not been convicted of drug offenses, money laundering, or any illegal activities.

According to Glover, an order to confiscate his assets would violate his property rights.

The defense attorney asserted that the law does not provide any evidence of wrongdoing, and the charges against Ramgoolam do not include any accusations, facts, or claims of public funds being misappropriated.

He pointed out that there are no indications that the seized assets were obtained through illegal means, stating, “This constitutes a violation of the Constitution, as it is a legal property.

There is no doubt that the confiscation law serves as a penalty and should follow a criminal conviction, which is not applicable in this case.”

Another crucial point raised by Glover was the presumption of innocence. He claimed that it should not be Ramgoolam’s responsibility to prove the origins of his money while he is entitled to remain silent.

He argued that proving the source of the assets would require a new charge, thereby violating his client’s rights, including the presumption of innocence.

Glover concluded that, given the multiple questions raised by the indictment, the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court.

In contrast, Me Nataraj Mooneesamy, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, responded that the former Prime Minister would not be denied a fair trial.

He questioned whether the right to property protects the accused from prosecution, asserting, “I would say there is no ambiguity, and the purpose is clear.

We are not here interpreting the FIAMLA; this is merely a matter of applying the FIAMLA.”

Mooneesamy acknowledged that while the accused can assert his right to silence, it is also possible for him to present additional evidence. He objected to the referral of the case to the Supreme Court.

It is important to note that the former Prime Minister faces 23 counts of exceeding cash payment limits under Section 5 of the FIAMLA.

He is accused of accepting Rs 63.8 million in cash over a six-year period, from January 31, 2009, to February 7, 2015.

Source: l’Express