Heroin Rs 17M Case: Ex-Police’s Testimony Sparks Courtroom Clash

This Friday 16th May, the Assises Court was charged with tension as former police officer Moonsamy Govindasamy Basana Reddi’s testimony was scrutinised in a case that has gripped all. The proceedings, held before Judge Pravin Harrah on Wednesday, 14 May 2025, revolve around the high-profile trial of Malgache national Ramahaimandimby Andry Andriamalala, Shahebzada Noormohamed Azaree, and detainee Siddick Islam — all accused of importing heroin in 2017.

At the heart of the courtroom controversy lies a motion put forth by the prosecution, seeking to admit into evidence the sworn statements of the former officer, Basana Reddi, made during his own trial in 2023.

Prosecutors, represented by Mᵉ Nataraj Muneesamy, argued that these declarations are admissible under Article 173(2)(a) of the Courts Act, asserting that Basana Reddi, described as a hostile witness, had acknowledged making these statements, affirming their truth to police, and confirming them under oath.

The prosecution’s case hinges on the assertion that these are not mere hearsay but legitimate evidence, supported by legal precedents.

Mᵉ Muneesamy contended that the witness, although claiming to “not remember,” did not deny having made the statements, and thus, the court should consider them valid.

“This is not hearsay,” he argued passionately, “it is a sworn testimony, and the witness has recognised its veracity.”

Opposing this motion, defence lawyers — Mᵉ Siddhartha Hawoldar for Ramahaimandimby Andry Andriamalala, Mᵉ Raouf Gulbul for Shahebzada Noormohamed Azaree, and Mᵉ Rama Valayden for Siddick Islam — challenged the admissibility of these statements.

They maintained that the current claims of amnesia by Basana Reddi do not constitute a contradiction warranting exclusion.

Instead, they argued, under Article 173, such statements should only be disregarded if there is a clear, manifest inconsistency, which they claimed was absent here.

The defence further warned against setting a dangerous precedent:

“If we accept this, we open the door to unreliable testimonies being admitted simply because the witness claims forgetfulness,” Mᵉ Valayden cautioned, highlighting the potential risks to fair trial standards.

After careful consideration, Judge Pravin Harrah reserved his ruling, leaving the courtroom in suspense.

It is important to recall that the heroin seized at the airport in June 2017 was valued at an estimated Rs 17 million — a staggering amount that underscores the gravity of this case.

Initially, the ex-police officer Basana Reddi had cooperated with investigators but later recanted his statements during his own trial, adding a complex layer of intrigue to proceedings.

Source: Defi Media