There is increasing doubt regarding the reasoning behind Mahendralal Patel, also known as Mahendra Motibhai Patel, receiving a Presidential pardon without having served his sentence. Mr. Patel was charged with Abuse of Office in 2006 and was convicted in absentia on November 20, 2014, receiving a 12-month prison sentence.
He did not serve his sentence because the court allowed him to leave the country for medical treatment, from which he never returned. Efforts to reach Attorney-General Graham Leung, who chairs the Mercy Commission, since Sunday for clarification about Mr. Patel’s conditional pardon have gone unanswered. A follow-up inquiry was made yesterday, but there was still no response at the time of publication.
Fiji Corrections Service (FCS) Commissioner Jalesi Nakarawa confirmed that Patel’s name was not included in the list submitted to the Mercy Commission by the FCS. The release list from the FCS issued last Thursday did not mention Mr. Patel, yet shortly after, the Fiji Government’s Facebook page listed him as one of those pardoned.
“The FCS facilitates applications from convicted prisoners. They submit their petitions, we process them, and then submit them to the Mercy Commission,” said Mr. Nakarawa. “In Patel’s case, we were unaware of any application as he wasn’t in our custody. Therefore, I do not know how his petition reached the Mercy Commission; I only handle cases of convicted prisoners under our care.”
A statement from the Mercy Commission indicated that Mr. Patel had submitted a petition for pardon on April 4, 2023, but it was dismissed. Then, on June 13, a letter from his lawyers requesting reconsideration was received. The Commission evaluated the second petition, taking into account Patel’s age, the duration of his absence from Fiji, and his notable contributions to the nation.
Consequently, the Commission suggested a conditional pardon for Mr. Patel, implying that he must not reoffend. The President approved this recommendation from the Mercy Commission on September 18, 2024, confirming that the decision adhered to constitutional provisions.