Aftermath of the BAI Case: The State Agrees to Pay Rs 300,000 to Brian Burns

Following a challenge to his arbitrary arrest and the provisional charges related to the BAI/Bramer case, Brian Burns has secured Rs 300,000 from the State. In exchange, he has waived any further claims, thereby bringing an end to a ten-year legal dispute. The agreement was ratified on Monday, October 6, 2025.

The litigation between Brian Burns and the State concluded in front of Chief Justice Bibi Rehana Mungly-Gulbul. Mr. Mikash Hassamal, the legal representative for Brian Burns, and Mr. Doorgesh Kumar Manikaran, Acting Deputy Chief State Attorney, informed the Court that a settlement had been reached. The State committed to paying Rs 300,000 to Brian Burns, who, in turn, relinquished all claims in this matter. The offer was accepted and resulted in a court judgment.

This settlement resolves a lawsuit initiated by Brian Burns, former Chief Executive Officer of Iframac and son-in-law of Dawood Rawat. He had sought Rs 40 million in damages from the State, the Police Commissioner, and former Assistant Police Commissioner Heman Jangi, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested on May 25, 2015, amid the investigation into the BAI/Bramer group. Four provisional charges had been brought against him: fraudulent use of company property, money laundering, conspiracy, and false declaration. On April 27, 2017, these provisional charges were dropped. To date, no formal charges have been retained against him.

The case underwent several judicial stages. On May 27, 2025, before Judge Denis Mootoo, the parties discussed a settlement proposal. Mr. Mikash Hassamal confirmed that an offer had been communicated to representatives of the State, while Ms. Niroshini Ramsoondar, Deputy Solicitor General, awaited a written version of this proposal. The matter was then called on July 17, 2025, before Pranay Sewpal, Acting Deputy Master and Registrar, and was scheduled for resolution on September 25, 2025. The agreement reached this Monday has definitively concluded ten years of litigation.