The statements made by Rakesh Gooljaury on Sunday 11th of January during a police interrogation under the Roches-Noires affair have brought Navin Ramgoolam in the limelight again. If Rakesh Gooljaury is indeed speaking the truth, the ex-PM will be directly linked to the armed robbery.
With the reopening of the police case entailing the theft at the bungalow of ex-PM, Navin Ramgoolam, back in July 2011, we are bound to have some surprises unfold. The CCID investigators had allegedly obtained invaluable information that allowed for the relaunching of the case. The investigations started off with the interrogation of those involved in the affair, with one of the main phases including that of Rakesh Gooljaury.
Rakesh Gooljaury, the director of Fashion Style, is said to have been the main victim of the armed robbery that occurred at the bungalow of the ex-PM at Roches-Noires. He alleged that he was posted there to keep an eye over the bungalow. He was thus into interrogation on Sunday 11th of January: an under caution interview.
Back in 2011, on the 3rd of July, Rakesh Gooljaury had filed a police case which was recorded at nine o’clock in the morning – that was supposedly eight hours after the incident at Roches-Noires. The complaint was attended to by a police sergeant. Now, it seems that he is making new statements that were not revealed four years ago.
On Sunday 11th of January, when Rakesh Gooljaury was made to face the ‘irrefutable facts’ gleaned by the investigators, he made some bewildering statements. He asserted that he was called to take the responsibility of the affair. He alleged that Navin Ramgoolam had ordered him to make the first testimony at the police station, making it look like he was the victim of the armed robbery so that Navin Ramgoolam would not have any direct link with the incident.
Rakesh Gooljaury was allowed to return home after the interrogation.
It seems that now Navin Ramgoolam will have to give a statement; the investigators working under the ACP Heman Jangi will probably soon convene him for the purpose.