Alleged Violation of the ICT Act: Decision on the Disputed Article Expected on December 23

The intermediate court is reviewing a constitutional debate in the case involving Dominique Seedeeal, also known as Darren L’Activiste. The crux of the matter is the validity of a charge based on the ICT Act, contested by the defense on the grounds of freedom of speech.

Dominique Seedeeal, more commonly known as Darren L’Activiste, will have to wait until December 23, 2025, to learn the decision from the intermediate court presided over by magistrate Keshri Soochit. A constitutional debate was raised at the request of the court for additional pleadings. The central issue is the legitimacy of one of the charges against the defendant.

Dominique Seedeeal faces two charges. The first is related to the use of a telecommunications service to broadcast a message deemed offensive, in violation of sections 46(1)(g)(a) and 47 of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Act 2021. The second pertains to a breach of bail conditions under sections 7(2)(b) and 22(a)(iv) of the Bail Act.

The alleged actions date back to August 20, 2022, on Jemmapes Street in Port Louis. It is alleged that Dominique Seedeeal, while on bail, broadcasted a live video on his Facebook page "Radio Mo Pep." During this broadcast, he allegedly accused a police officer of "drug planting" at the lawyer Akil Bissessur's request, despite being expressly forbidden from using this platform.

According to Me Bhavna Bhagwan, Senior State Counsel, the indictment is clear and compliant with the law. She explained that the legislator has set a dual requirement. The message, she states, must be offensive and likely to cause harm. This harm may include severe emotional distress, assessed through an objective test, that of a "reasonable person placed in the victim's situation." She believes that the statements in question constitute an extremely serious allegation against a police officer.

The defense, represented by Me Sanjeev Teeluckdharry, challenged the constitutionality of section 46(1)(g)(a) of the ICT Act. He argued that the term "offensive" is vague and subjective, failing to meet the clarity requirement imposed by the Constitution. According to him, the law must be drafted with precision, yet the legislator has cast "too wide a net." The lawyer invoked freedom of speech, the presumption of innocence, and the protection of the law, asserting that his client is in a position comparable to that of a reporter.