Ahmud Shakeel Khan Jahangeer (Appellant) v Financial Crimes Commission and 2 others (Respondents) (Mauritius)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0040

Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Parties

Appellant(s)

Ahmud Shakeel Khan Jahangeer

Respondent(s)

The State of Mauritius, The Director of Public Prosecutions

The Financial Crimes Commission

Issue

Is section 10(1) of the Constitution breached by the delivery of a judgment and/or the execution of a sentence 8 years after hearing the appeal?

Facts

The Constitution of Mauritius provides in section 10(1): “Where any person is charged with a criminal offence, then, unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.” On 18 September 2012, Ahmud Shakeel Khan Jahangeer was prosecuted in relation to allegedly receiving six sums, each between 250,000 and 300,000 Mauritian rupees, in cash from Nagen Veeren between on or about 16 November 2007 and 13 December 2007. Mr Jahangeer was charged with six counts of money laundering, contrary to sections 3(1)(b), 6(3), and 8 of the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2002 (“FIMLA”). The prosecution’s case was that Mr Jahangeer wilfully, unlawfully, and criminally received property which in whole directly represented the proceeds of a crime, where he had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the property was derived in whole directly from a crime. He pleaded not guilty to all counts. On 24 May 2018, the magistrate found in light of the evidence at trial that the prosecution had proven its case against Mr Jahangeer beyond reasonable doubt. Mr Jahangeer was found guilty on all six counts and sentenced to three months imprisonment. That sentence was later converted to an order for community service following a favourable report. By a notice of appeal dated 4 July 2018, Mr Jahangeer appealed to the Supreme Court. He challenged the findings made by the magistrate and contended that the magistrate had not properly directed herself that it was unsafe to act on the uncorroborated evidence of witnesses who were also suspects, including Nagen Vareen. On 14 March 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. The court was not convinced that the findings of fact were wrong and found that the magistrate was fully alive to the care with which she had to treat the evidence of suspects. Mr Jahangeer appeals to the Board on the basis that delivery of the judgment several years after the appeal and 17 and half years after the commission of the alleged offence is in breach of the reasonable time requirement as guaranteed by section 10 (1) of the Constitution.

Date of issue

27 May 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top