Galleries more

Videos more

Dictionary more

What happened at the Roches Noires Campement ?


In the early hours of 3rd July 2011, there was a “burglary” at the bungalow which had recently been acquired by the then Prime Minister N.Ramgoolam.

The burglary was reported to the police by Mr. Rakesh Gooljaury, a businessman whose company now features in the top 100 companies in Mauritius, but who was acting as the “caretaker” of Ramgoolam’s bungalow the night of the burglary. Gooljaury apparently reported the case to the police after contacting Ramgoolam, and after the latter advised him to do so.

Here is Gooljaury’s version of the events that occurred that night: he was sleeping in the bungalow on his own, when a burglar wearing only a pair of shorts, turned up armed with a knife, and demanded money. Gooljaury handed over the sum of Rs. 20,000 which he had in a briefcase, and the burglar disappeared into the night. According to Gooljaury, there was nobody else present in the bungalow at the time, but apparently Ramgoolam turned up later.

At the time there was a lot of speculation about a very expensive Rolex watch also being stolen, and this lead to a possible link with another police case about a stolen watch being sold to a Mr. Ramdhony who was arrested, and later found dead in a Police cell in the region. Ramgoolam denied that his Rolex watch was ever stolen.

During the recent electoral campaign, the Lalyans Lepep had promised to re-open the police enquiry regarding the burglary, because they claimed there were too many inconsistencies in the original “official” version.

After the change of government, the new police enquiry was duly started. A number of new witnesses, mainly employees of the security firm who had been present at the bungalow after the burglary happened, have already been questioned by the police.

According to new elements that have been leaked to the media, there is beginning to emerge a completely new version of what occurred at the Ramgoolam bungalow on the night of the 2nd to 3rd of July 2011.
It seems that there was some kind of “party” that took place at the bungalow earlier that same night, a party attended by people driving big smart cars with registration numbers that have already been communicated to the police. It would appear that at the time of the burglary, or immediately after, Ramgoolam was present there, possibly in the company of somebody “with long hair”. More witnesses are expected to be questioned as the enquiry progresses, including Gooljaury and probably N.Ramgoolam himself.

If the new version of events on that night is confirmed, we are faced with a conspiracy of terrifying dimensions, suggesting a series of questions regarding the role played by a large number of people involved in the happenings on that night, as well as the people involved in the original enquiry.

How come all those “smart party goers” agreed to keep quiet about the party that took place on that night?

Why did Gooljaury, and indeed Ramgoolam himself, not make any reference to that gathering that happened before the burglary?

Why did the police officers involved in the original enquiry not question the security company employees who seem to have been present at the bungalow just after the burglary, at the time? How high up in the police hierarchy were decisions being made on the conduct of the enquiry?

What was the point of reporting the “burglary” to the police, if all the relevant details regarding events on that night were to be kept secret?

What ever happened to the man dressed only in shorts?

Are there not a large number of people in the social proximity of N.Ramgoolam who seem to be involved in the cover-up, if cover-up there is. Perhaps people will now begin to understand why in LALIT, we denounce the concept of “private life that needs to stay hidden” as opposed to “privacy” which is everybody’s right.