Ver? oe aan ) \ Serial No:1298/2015 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS SUMMONS In the matter of: The Solicitor General Applicant vs 4, Satyajit Boolell 2. The L.C.A.C 3. The Commissioner of Police Respondents: And in the presence of: The Ministry of Housing and Lands Co-Respondent LET the Respondents and Co-respondent named in the Praecipe annexed attend before the Honourable A. F. Chui Yew Cheong, Judge sitting at Chambers on TUESDAY the 08" day of SEPTEMBER 2015 at 10.15 a.m. to show cause why the application mentioned in the said Praecipe should not be granted. Upon the application of Me A. Robert, Attorney for the Applicant. Chambers, this 03 day of September 2015. \ rs § \ Dep.Master and Registrar Fa \ %IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS (BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE SITTING AT CHAMBERS) Application for leave to Intervene made Pursuant to Rule 38(4) of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 In the matter o' S.N. 1047/2015 Satyajit Boolell Applicant v. 1. The Independent Commission Against Corruption 2. The Commissioner of Police Respondents And in presence of: The Ministry of Housing and Lands espondent And in the matter of :- The Solicitor General, of 4" floor, R. Seeneevassen Bullding, Jules Koenig Street, Port Louis Applicant1. Satyajit Boolell, of Garden Tower, Poudriare Street, Port Louis 2. The Independent Commission Against Corruption, of Réduit 3. The Commissioner of Police, of Line Barracks, Port Louis And in presence of: The Ministry of Housing and Lands, of Ebene ond: PROECIPE For the issue of a summons, calling upon the abovenamed Respondents and Co-Respondent to appear before the Honourable Judge sitting at Chambers, on a day and at a time to be fixed in the said summons, then and there to show cause why an Order should not be made by the Honourable Judge sitting at Chambers, allowing the Applicant to intervene as Third Party in the Main Case (as defined in the hereto appended affidavit) to bring further relevant evidence on a crucial issue in the Main Case which Is likely to affect the Office (as defined in the hereto appended affidavit) and its Law Officers including Mr Rajeshsharma Ramloll personally and directly. And this for the reasons set out In the hereto appended affidavit. With costs. Under all legal reservations. Dated at Port Louis, this...éc....day of September, 2015. Ly ‘André ROBERT OF No. 8, Georges Guibert Street, Port Louis, PPLICANT’S ATTORNEYIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE SITTING AT CHAMBERS) Affidavit in connection with an Application for leave to intervene Pursuant to Rule 38(4) of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 In the matter of:- S.N. 1047/2015 ~ Satyajit Boolell Applicant v. 1. The Independent Commission Against Corruption 2, The Commissioner of Police Respondents ‘And in presence of: ~ The Ministry of Housing and Lands Go-Respondent And in the matter of : The Solicitor General, of 4" floor, R. Seeneevassen Building, Jules Koenig Street, Port Louis Applicant tw age tot1, Satyajit Boolell, of Garden Tower, Poudridre Street, Port Louls 2. The Independent Commission Against Corruption, of Réduit 3. The Commissioner of Police, of Line Barracks, Port Louis Respondents And in presence of: The Ministry of Housing and Lands, of Ebéne Co-Respondent |, Rajeshsharma Ramloll, Deputy Solicitor-General, residing at 47, Avenue Des Goyaviers, Quatre Bornes and holding national identity card number 81303693004810 LEI IRMATI WAND SAY TH. 11am currently Deputy Solicitor General on appointment by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission | have been duly authorised by the Solicitor General, who acts under the direction of the Honourable Attorney General under section 8 of the Law Officers’ Act, to solemnly affirm this affidavit, 2 joined the Attorney General's Office as Law Officer in 1995, 3 The facts and matters to which | refer in this affidavit are from my personal knowledge, in which case they are true, or (where | have indicated) from information Provided to me by other persons, in which case | believe them to be true {based on all of the information at my disposal), 4 The Attorney General is the principal legal adviser to the Government, and in the day to day advisory work this function is discharged by the Solicitor General who is the highest ranking public officer of Attorney General's Office (the “Office”). The Solicitor General 5 supported in his task as principal non political legal adviser to the Government by other Law Officers all of whom are appointed by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, and work under the administrative supervision of the Solicitor-General.All requests for legal advice and services coming from all the Government departments and Ministries are sent to the registry of the Office and then directed to the Solicitor General who either provides the advice himself or, as in practice happens, he redirects these requests to Law Officers to be attended to on his behalf in accordance with a schedule of duties determined by the Solicitor General from time to time. It is an established practice that Law Officers provide their advice to Government departments on behalf of the Solicitor General under whose administrative direction they carry out their functions, as in the case of other public officials in Government Departments who act on behalf of Permanent Secretarles or Senior Chief Executives. That Is how at the beginning of 2012, holding then the post of Assistant Solicitor- General, | was designated by the Solicitor General to advise the Ministry of Housing and Lands and | was also called to appear before the Courts for the sald Ministry In several cases. Ithas come to public knowledge that on or about 14" July 2015 Mr Satyajit Boolell, the “Applicant In the Main Case", has made an application by way of a Praecipe and affidavit to the Honourable Judge In Chambers for certain Orders against The Independent Commission Against Corruption (the “ICAC”) and the Commissioner of Police (the “CP”) both as Respondents and in presence of the Ministry of Housing and Lands (the “Co-Respondent in the Main Case"). The said application shall be referred to as the Main Case and the parties to the Main Case shall be referred to as they are designated in the citation of the Main Case. On or about 23" July 2015, there appeared on the website of a local press a copy of the affidavit (the “Affidavit”) solemnly affirmed by the representative of the ICAC, Respondent No 1 in the Main Case, the content of which was subsequently copiously commented upon by the media during the following weekend, | have no reason to believe that the original of the affidavit (the “Affidavit in Reply”) was not duly filed on. record in the Main Case as the reply of Respondent No 1 to the affidavit of the Applicant in the Main Case. Paragraph 15 of the Affidavit in Reply (more particularly sub-paragraphs (j) (k) and (n)) refers to me by name, and to a legal advice | gave on 24™ February 2012 on behalf of the Solicitor General, in relation to the payment of indemnity fee to Government by lessees of Pas Géométriques and annexed to the Affidavit in Reply was a copy of the written advice of the Office to the Ministry under my hand.10 The Respondent No 4 in the Main Case relies in Paragraph 26 of its Affidavit in Reply on the advice the Office gave, to justify its stand that the investigation being conducted with respect to the Applicant In the Main Cace be proceeded with, to further investigate for a Possible offence under section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and invoked at Sub-paragraph(a) (ili) the possibility that a conspiracy offence has been committed since the advice on the matter was on “more advantageous terms ... and clearly on a different hasis of assessment as set out in the first advice tendered by the Applicant {in the Main Case] in 2008” to the co- 8y Feason of the above mentioned contents of the Affidavit in Reply of Respondent No 4, the Applicant has personal, legitimate and Sufficient interest to intervene in the Maln Case to throw light on a critical issue being canvassed by Respondent No 1 in as Prejudicial to the Applicant, the Office and myself as a Law Officer, and detrimental to our credibility; | was under the schedule of work at the Attorney General's Office at the relevant time designated by the Solicitor (b) the request for advice addressed by the Co-Respondent in the Main Case was received by the registry on 13 February 2012, sent by the registry to the Solicitor General and seen personally by the Solicitor General himself who referred then the file to me. The issue of “tacite Feconduction” and its (<) | on the basis of the facts and documents disclosed by the Co-Respondent (Ministry of Housing and Lands}, and the ‘material that was present on the relevant file of the Office, the advice given was legally sound, objective and 2009, the Code Civil Mauricien, the prevalling case law and the “doctrine” on the matter, rage otea (2) the averment at paragraph 26(a) (I) of the Affidavit In Reply of the Respondent No 1 that such advice was “on more advantageous terms to Sun Tan Hotels Pty’ Is a gross oversimplification of Issues involved and is inaccurate in law, as it disregards the fact that the previous advice (2 material part of which was a mere suggestion) tendered by the Applicant in the Main Case focused on the policy issue relating to “indemnity” payable and not on the application of the legal principle of “taclte reconduction” arising out of the particular facts of the case. as a Law Officer working at the Attorney-General’s Office for more than twenty years, | have consistently carried out my duties without fear or favour and at no time In providing advice on behalf of the Solicitor General on the payment of indemnity to the Co-Respondent in the Main Case, have | been under any pressure or threat, nor have | given consideration to anything else than the strict application of the law of the land as it would apply to the facts of the case. | verily believe for the reasons set out above that the Applicant has good cause to apply for intervention in the Main Case and that the present application Is not vexatious or mala fide, and consequently that it is expedient that a summons be issued, calling upon the abovenamed Respondents and Co-Respondent to appear before the Honourable Judge sitting at Chambers, on a day and at a time to be fixed in the sald summons, then and there to show cause why an Order should not be made by the Honourable Judge sitting at Chambers, allowing the Applicant to Intervene as Third Party In the Main Case to bring further relevant evidence on a cruclal Issue in the Main Case which Is likely to adversely affect the Office and its Law Officers including me personally and directly. at Page sot12. I pray accordingly. With costs. Solemnly affirmed by the above named eponent at New Court House, Port Louis, this 2 day of September, 2015 André ROBERT ATTORNEY AT LAW The present affidavit Is being affirmed in connecti before the Honourabte Judge sitting at Chambers, André ok ATTORNEY AT LAW rage 6 or