Tracking cases that protect freedom of expression, association, and assembly

Kushal Devi Seenauth-Sohun v. The Commissioner of Police and Others

Last Case Update

This case discusses the unlawful arrest, detention, and imprisonment of Kushal Devi Seenauth-Sohun over a Facebook post criticizing the government’s actions towards the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kushal Devi Seenauth-Sohun is an assistant to the former President, Mrs. Ameenah Gurib-Fakimwho, who is a political foe of the current ruling party.

On April 14, 2020, Ms. Seenauth-Sohun Devi posted on her personal Facebook profile, under her username “Kushal Rachna Seenauth,” a post which she had copied from ‘Titalbér 3.0’, a publicly accessible Facebook page. The post heavily criticised the government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. The last sentence, in the Creole language, was swear words meaning something like ‘Keep f*****g us, impotent” (our translation, since there is no clear English translation). On April 15, 2020, police officers raided Ms. Seenauth-Sohun’s residence and told her it was on account of her Facebook post, however, they did not show a search warrant. They informed her that she was not under arrest and that she could only be assisted by her counsel after reaching the Police Cybercrime Unit. Ms. Seenauth-Sohun managed to make a phone call to inform her counsel, Mr. Rouben Mooroongapillay, that she was being forced to accompany the Police to the Cybercrime Unit. Then, her mobile phone, SIM card, and laptop were seized and secured.

Ms. Seenauth-Sohun was not immediately brought to the Police Cybercrime Unit, but instead was unnecessarily kept at the Special Supporting Unit (SSU), where she waited in a conference room for about 2 hours. There, in spite of her constitutional right to silence, an agent questioned her about the Facebook post, among other things. Once again, Ms. Seenauth-Sohun asked the Police whether she was under arrest and whether she could contact her counsel, but the authorities reiterated that she was not under arrest and that she could only be legally represented once she was at the Police Cybercrime Unit. Meanwhile, Mr. Mooroongapillay kept trying to locate his client, but the police withheld any information concerning Ms. Seenauth-Sohun’s whereabouts after 1 pm.

At about 4pm, Ms. Seenauth-Sohun was taken to the Cybercrime Unit, where she was told that the Police enquiry would not proceed until the next day, at which point she would be allowed legal representation. She was only allowed to make one phone call to her family to inform them that she was being detained overnight at Pailles Police cell and to notify her Counsel about the police enquiry on the next day.

The next day, Ms. Seenauth-Sohun was taken to the Police Cybercrime Unit in Port Louis and the police enquiry proceeded in presence of her counsel. She was unconstitutionally charged with the purported offense of “knowingly sending a false message” in an alleged breach of s46(g) of the Information and Communication Technologies Act. On the motion of the Police Prosecutor, the District Court issued a Prohibition Order against her, which is still very much in force. The case is still ongoing at the district court level. Additionally, Ms. Seenauth-Sohun’s mobile phone, SIM card, and laptop computer remain seized by Police, as secured exhibits.

Ms. Seenauth-Sohun is now applying for a constitutional redress under the Constitution of Mauritius alleging that her constitutional rights were and are currently being violated, including the right to freedom of expression. She requested 20 million RS (243,743 USD) in compensation. It should be noted that Ms. Seenauth-Sohun argued that her arrest, detention and false imprisonment were fueled by improper and unfairly discriminatory political motivations.

Ms. Seenauth-Sohun has filed the documents and is waiting for finalization of pleadings from the Respondents before the Court sets a date for hearing.

For a while, in the initial stages of Covid-19 pandemic, Mauritius did not have any cases despite the borders being open. Around that time, there were also concerns about the general election results. Although this is the only case brought to the Supreme Court under violations of constitutional rights, including the right to freedom of expression, the government has been increasingly using the Information and Communication Technologies Act of 2001 to curb any criticism against it in the context of elections, and more so in the context of Covid-19 and the oil spill by the Wakashio ship. Furthermore, the Government even introduced a new tax on online services that might threaten freedom of expression. Some other instances that threaten freedom of expression and access to information are: one radio station’s license was suspended for 2 days for questioning the constitution of the Independent Broadcasting Authority; a new paper to propose amendments to ICTA that can threaten the right to privacy and freedom of expression; boycott of some media during Covid-19 briefings; and the use of the Quarantine Act for dubious detention.

Relevant Links