Me Yuvir Bandhu: "If zero tolerance leads to physical correction or intimidation, it is abuse"

Me Yuvir Bandhu offers a clear perspective on the report from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) regarding incidents that occurred at the Melrose high-security prison. While he emphasizes that the rights of every inmate must be strictly upheld, he acknowledges that some guards might exploit their positions for personal gain against certain prisoners.

The concept of a "zero tolerance policy" aimed at "correcting" inmates—does it represent an entirely unacceptable approach, or is it, albeit unofficially, part of the culture for managing unruly inmates? In theory, a zero tolerance policy aims to deter violence, disturbances, and non-compliance within correctional facilities. It indicates that infractions will lead to swift and proportionate sanctions according to established prison rules.

However, in a framework based on human rights and the rule of law, "zero tolerance" must always operate within procedural and constitutional boundaries. If this policy devolves into a justification for "physical correction" or intimidation, it ceases to be a lawful disciplinary measure and becomes institutionalized abuse.

The report mentions that the use of force was "grossly disproportionate". For an inmate already under control, ordering them to undress and striking them naked on the ground—would you consider this degrading treatment or a form of torture beyond imprisonment? Yes, in my legal opinion, this treatment would constitute degrading treatment and, depending on its severity and intent, could be classified as torture under national constitutional law and international human rights law.

The report highlights that two senior officers "effectively distanced themselves from the operations." Should this be interpreted as a sign that they wanted to allow the "correction" while protecting themselves from accountability for the violence? The Commission's observation that two senior officers "effectively distanced themselves from the operations" raises questions about supervisory and command responsibility rather than intent. In the context of prison administration, senior officers responsible for oversight remain accountable for ensuring that any use of force conforms to legal standards.

Consequently, "taking a step back" does not inherently imply the intention to allow violence; however, it may constitute a failure of hierarchical responsibility if it resulted in a lapse in legal oversight at a critical moment.

The NHRC noted that the massive deployment was "grossly disproportionate". Under normal circumstances, what level of authorization should precede the use of such force to avoid reprisals? Under normal circumstances, the deployment of specialized or armed units (such as the SMF or GIPM) in a prison requires explicit approval from the chain of command. Only after receiving this authorization can an external tactical unit intervene in a correctional facility, and only as a last resort when non-violent methods and internal containment measures have failed.

The threshold for intervention is high, and the authority authorized to give the go-ahead must justify both the necessity and proportionality of the operation.

The combination of fear and corruption undermines authority, security, and legal control, creating an environment conducive to the emergence of informal power.

How do you explain the presence of corrupt guards and the existence of an "underground economy" (phones costing Rs 150,000) in the high-security Melrose prison? Is this corruption the root that allows "correction policies" to flourish? Prisons, particularly high-security ones, operate as closed environments characterized by limited oversight, hierarchical control, and discretionary power. Such environments naturally create opportunities for rent-seeking behavior.

Corruption thus becomes an economic subculture, a parallel "underground economy" fueled by both supply (agents seeking income) and demand (inmates seeking comfort or communication). In this sense, yes, corruption can be seen as a root cause and condition that fosters abusive "correctional" practices.

In light of the obstruction and failing command, what urgent and exemplary disciplinary actions should be taken to restore trust and deter any future "correction policy"? The first step is to ensure that disciplinary procedures are initiated promptly and conducted transparently. This should include:

1. Immediate prohibition (suspension) of the officers directly involved, pending investigation, to prevent any interference with witnesses or evidence;
2. Independent disciplinary commissions (not limited to prison hierarchy) to ensure impartiality;
3. Publication of the results of disciplinary procedures, in summary form, to demonstrate that accountability is not internalized or symbolic. At this stage, transparency is essential to restore public trust and assure that professional misconduct will not be "managed quietly".

Beyond individual discipline, the Cabinet and the prison commissioner should urgently implement institutional reforms, such as:

1. A mandatory incident reporting protocol, reviewed by an external inspection body;
2. The installation of body cameras or a video surveillance system in all intervention areas;
3. Introduction of staff rotation in sensitive wings to reduce well-established informal networks;
4. Mandatory training on human rights and de-escalation for all operational units.

These measures prevent the re-emergence of informal "correctional" cultures by reducing impunity and reinforcing procedural discipline.

How do you perceive your client’s release while being aware of potential recidivism risks? As a lawyer, my duty is not to judge the client's character or predict future behavior but to ensure that their current legal rights are fully and fairly protected. The judicial system operates under the principle that freedom is the norm, and detention must be justified by law and not by personal speculation.

If the law allows for my client's release, whether on bail or after serving their sentence, my duty is to secure that release legally.

What is your opinion on the prison system? In Mauritius, prisons serve an essential function in public safety and law enforcement, but systemic weaknesses—including corruption, lack of training, and procedural failures—have sometimes led to violations of human rights.

It is crucial to enhance oversight, accountability, and adherence to international standards to ensure that prisons do not become places of impunity or abuse and that rehabilitation and legal management remain guiding principles.

Some prison guards express strong apprehension regarding violent inmates, particularly those on parole. At the same time, cases of misconduct, such as the introduction of mobile phones or other items for remuneration, have been reported. What is your analysis of this situation? This situation reflects a systemic failure: guards fear violent inmates but exploit that fear for profit by smuggling goods. This combination of fear and corruption undermines authority, security, and legal control, creating an environment conducive to the emergence of informal power and abusive "correctional" practices.