Kistnen Inquiry Report: Can the DPP Release It Legally?

Opposition leader Paul Berenger has renewed pressure on the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to release the official judicial inquiry report into the death of Soopramanien Kistnen, reigniting a debate that cuts to the heart of Mauritian legal process and public accountability.

Soopramanien Kistnen was a constituency agent for the Militant Socialist Movement (MSM), the party of former Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth. His body was found in a sugarcane field in Richelieu in October 2020. The circumstances of his death triggered a formal judicial inquiry, a mechanism under Mauritian law used to establish the facts surrounding unexplained or suspicious deaths. The inquiry concluded, but its report has not been made public.

The central legal question is whether the DPP has the authority, or the obligation, to release such a report, and under what conditions doing so would be lawful.

Under the Mauritius Constitution and the relevant provisions governing judicial inquiries, reports of this nature are submitted to the DPP, who then decides whether the findings justify criminal charges. The report itself is not automatically a public document. Its status depends on whether releasing it would prejudice any ongoing or contemplated criminal proceedings.

The DPP operates as an independent constitutional officer. That independence means the office is not compelled to act on political calls alone, whether from the opposition or the government. Any decision to publish must be grounded in law, not public pressure.

There is a genuine tension here. On one side sits the public interest in transparency, particularly in a case involving a death with alleged political dimensions. On the other sits the duty to protect the integrity of any further investigation or prosecution. If the report contains evidence or witness information that could compromise a future trial, releasing it prematurely could undermine the very justice it is meant to serve.

Mauritian law does allow for selective disclosure in some circumstances, for instance sharing findings with a complainant or the family of the deceased, without full public release. This middle path is sometimes used when a report's conclusions are sensitive but the affected parties have a legitimate interest in knowing the outcome.

What this means: For the Kistnen family and the wider public, the pressure on the DPP reflects a broader frustration with perceived opacity in high-profile cases. Legally, however, the DPP cannot simply hand over the report on demand. The office must assess whether criminal proceedings remain possible or pending, whether disclosure would prejudice those proceedings, and whether any statutory provision specifically permits or restricts release. Until those questions are resolved internally, the report is likely to remain confidential. The DPP's decision, when it comes, will set an important precedent for how Mauritius handles transparency in politically sensitive judicial inquiries.

Source: Mauritius Times