This report aims to provide a detailed account of my experience visiting the Intermediate

Court of Mauritius on Thursday 16th March 2023. The report will comprise of the courts
setting, its comparison to Nigerian Intermediary Court, the case overview, and court actors
dynamic. Through this report, I aim to demonstrate my understanding of legal issues
presented in the case, as well as the practical skills gained from observing court proceedings.

Court Setting.

The Intermediate Court in Mauritius at 12:30pm had an austere appearance to reflect the
gravitas of the legal proceedings. The hierarchical seating arrangements started with the
Judge. Everyone else was on a lower leveled floor alongside the two-witness box. There were
eleven microphones and four speakers present but not in use and two faulty lights out of ten.
However, only the Judge enjoyed two standing fans for the duration of 1 hour and 30
minutes. Only justification would be the natural light that panned into the Court from the nine
large windows above him.

Comparison of Courts.

The intermediate courts in Mauritius and Nigeria occupy different positions in their
respective court hierarchies. Nigeria has separate intermediate courts for Islamic, customary,
and general cases, while Mauritius has a single intermediate court for both civil and criminal
cases. The Nigerian High Court handles civil and criminal cases, while the Sharia Court of
Appeal and Customary Court of Appeal deal with Islamic and customary law cases,
respectively. Furthermore, there is usual the usual custom of presenting a Quran or Bible for
the Witness to swear upon in Nigerian courts but this was not observed in the court visit.

Case Overview.

In the case of Police v C. Begre Anor, the defendant's house was raided on suspicion of drug
dealing. The defendant pleaded guilty, the defendant's wife apologized to the court and a ratio
decidendi would be determined and given by Thursday, March 30th, 2023.

The provision and distribution of drugs was a significant issue, as it involved the defendant
engaging in illegal activities that posed a threat to public health and safety. The coherency of
testimony was also a crucial issue, as it affected the credibility of witnesses and the overall
strength of the prosecution's case. Additionally, the process of plea bargaining and the degree
of sentencing were essential considerations that required the court to balance the need for
punishment with the defendant's circumstances and criminal history.

Court Actors Dynamic.

Judge Morgan, who displayed impartiality and an unbiased approach in hearing the evidence
presented by both parties was well dressed in his legal gown, which added to the decorum of
the court. Assisting Judge Morgan in ensuring the smooth operation of the court proceedings
and maintaining order in the courtroom were the Court Usher, Clerk, and Security Personnel.
The Usher and Clerk were well-dressed in suits. Four police-related witnesses appeared as
witnesses, dressed in blazers and suits. They provided physical evidence of drugs, money and
testimony based on their firsthand knowledge or expertise.
The lawyers representing the parties were responsible for presenting their respective cases,
questioning witnesses, and arguing the points of law. The defendant's lawyer wore a legal
robe over his suit, while the police prosecutor wore his uniformed police attire without a
robe. During the court proceedings, both lawyers followed the standard style of evidence
presentation; opening statements, cross-examination, direct examination, and closing
arguments.

Despite the language barrier, the evidence presented was significant in establishing the
defendant's guilt. Additionally, four witnesses testified in the Intermediate Court of
Mauritius, providing testimony that further strengthened the prosecution's case. Although
there was no expert testimony outside of the police department, the evidence presented was
sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt.

Recommended changes.

If applicable, potential changes in the future would deem it noteworthy that alternative
sentencing options for drug-related offenses, such as drug treatment programs, could be
developed to provide judges with greater flexibility in sentencing, helps reduce the number of
individuals being incarcerated for drug offenses and instills greater communal insight into the
responsibility of Mauritius citizens.

Conclusion.

Overall, the court proceedings of Police v C. Begre Anor provided a practical experience in
understanding the legal issues presented in the case, dynamic of court actors, differences
between similar courts over a different jurisdiction and suggestion of recommended changes
despite the language barrier of French and Creole, which made it challenging to follow the
proceedings consistently.