There is increasing concern regarding the rationale behind Mahendralal Patel, also known as Mahendra Motibhai Patel, receiving a Presidential pardon without having served his sentence.
Patel was charged with Abuse of Office in 2006 and was convicted in absentia on November 20, 2014, receiving a 12-month prison sentence. However, he did not serve any time because the court permitted him to travel abroad for medical treatment, and he did not return after his leave.
Attempts to reach Attorney-General Graham Leung, who chairs the Mercy Commission, for clarification about the conditional pardon granted to Patel have been unsuccessful. A follow-up was conducted, but there was still no response when this article was prepared.
Fiji Corrections Service (FCS) Commissioner Jalesi Nakarawa confirmed that Patel’s name did not appear on the FCS list submitted to the Mercy Commission. In fact, Patel was absent from the FCS’s release list published last Thursday afternoon.
Less than thirty minutes later, however, the Fiji Government’s official Facebook page listed Patel as one of those who were pardoned. Nakarawa stated, “FCS facilitates applications submitted by convicted prisoners. They submit their petitions, and we process them and then submit them to the Mercy Commission.” He noted that Patel was not included on their list because he was not in their custody and expressed uncertainty on how his case reached the Mercy Commission.
According to a statement from the Mercy Commission, Patel had submitted a petition on April 4, 2023, which was initially dismissed. On June 13, his lawyers sent a letter for reconsideration of his petition. The Commission deliberated again, taking into account Patel’s age, the duration of his absence from Fiji, and his significant contributions to the country.
Consequently, the Commission recommended a conditional pardon for Patel, contingent on ensuring he does not reoffend. The President acted on the Mercy Commission’s recommendation under Section 119(5) of the Constitution on September 18, 2024. The Commission confirmed that its decisions were rendered in accordance with constitutional provisions.