P. 1
Affidavit - Dev Hurnam - Navin Ramgolam CT POWER in Court

Affidavit - Dev Hurnam - Navin Ramgolam CT POWER in Court

|Views: 166|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Force Vive Triolet Mauritius on Apr 27, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/06/2015

pdf

text

original

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In Re:Devendranath Hurnam also know as Dev Hurnam, a British Qualified Barrister, of 22 Bourbon Street, Port Louis v Navinchandra Ramgoolam, Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Home Affairs and External Communications, service at Treasury Building Port Louis Respondent In the Presence of:The Attorney-General [Unreturned], Y N Varma, Renganaden Seeneevassen Building, Port Louis Co-Respondent I,Devendranath Hurnam also called Dev Hurnam, a British qualified Barrister, Immigration Consultant and Chief Executive of Human Rights [Action Group], residing at 16 Malherbes Street, Curepipe and having my office at 22 Bourbon Street, Port Louis and holder of NIC H 1001471400711. MAKE SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AS A HINDU AND SAY:1. I am a citizen of the Republic of Mauritius. I am a qualified Barrister and am also engaged in active politics having been a Member of the National Assembly for the period September 2000 to April 2005. I am a founder member of a political party under the name of Parti Lepep. I am an Immigration Consultant and I head the Human Rights [Action Group], a voluntary Organisation. 2. I was called to the Mauritian Bar on 30 October 1975 and was in regular private practice ever since except for two short periods when I was appointed Crown Counsel and suspended from practice for one year until my name was, on 30 January 2008, outrageously struck off the Roll of Law Practitioners. 3. I am a well known figure in Mauritius, and sometimes an outspoken critic

Applicant

of the political and legal establishment, in particular of the Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and some members of the judiciary. I have appeared as Counsel in many locally controversial cases (including appeals before the Privy Council) and have also been a party in few cases namely Hurnam v Paratian [1998]1AC 707 and Hurnam v The State of Mauritius [2006] UKPC 49,[2006] 1WLR 857 and in each of which appeals my position vis-à-vis the State was vindicated. I have further instituted several civil actions and criminal prosecutions against a number of Police Officers, members of the Judiciary, legal officers and some barristers who have caused me irreparable damages and prejudice. Except for criminal private prosecutions, most of the civil claims are still pending after protracted stands of the State and the parties.

2

4. On each occasion arising and in order to protect the integrity of the judicial process, I have unhesitatingly initiated some of the following proceedings:i] D Hurnam v The Attorney-General [IPO] J Forget Contract Chief Justice [SCR 56648 [1996] Moved to have the contract appointment rescinded and prior to the hearing and before expiry of the contractual period, the Contract Chief Justice resigned.; ii] Leave to apply for a Judicial Review in the issue of Rs 20.00 bank Note; Leave was granted; the main application was set aside but the Bank withdrew the notes; iii] Criminal Prosecution for conspiracy against the then DPP Ww A Chui Yew Cheong, Inspector Ghoora & ors which prosecution was discontinued by the then DPP Hamuth; iv] Leave to apply for Judicial review against WW A Chui Yew Cheong for failure to prosecute Rene Denys Kwet Fat Lan Yee Chiu for breach of the rehabilitation order; leave refused but prosecution was continued by the Intermediate Court; v] Criminal Prosecution for Conspiracy against Sik Yuen and Ragen before the District Court of Port Louis [S][CN 21791/06] when the two protagonists conspired with the President to release documents of the Commission of enquiry which documents were illegally retained at the Prime Minister’s Office AFTER the report alone was remitted to the President; the then DPP Hamuth came to their rescue yet again discontinued the proceedings; vi] Criminal prosecution against the then Commissioner of Police [R Gopalsing] and his Superintendent of Police before the District Court of Port Louis for abuse of Authority [2006]; again the DPP discontinued proceedings; vii] Contempt proceedings against DI Ghoorah & anor who re-arrested my then client after the court had granted bail and although there was documentary evidence of re-arrest, the Court [K P Matadeen J] set aside the application and viii] Contempt proceedings against the chief justice Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen, SPJ Matadeen and Bhaukaurally J pending before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Ref: Case no JCPC 2011/0002. 5. Mauritius is a sovereign democratic State with the Constitution as its Supreme Law. The protection of fundamental rights are guaranteed under the Constitution and the principle of separation of powers is one of the pillars of its democracy. The right to the protection of the law and due process is an entrenched provision of the Constitution. Mauritius has a multiethnic and multicultural population. 6. In the political arena I stood against Respondent when he was the outgoing

Prime Minister in the September 2000 General Elections and all the political pundits including some members of the Judiciary predicted that I would not be elected but after my success, I regrettably refused a

3 Ministerial post in the face of my then professional obligations towards my clients. Respondent alone was returned in that constituency.
7. Respondent as styled above is the Prime Minister of the Republic of

Mauritius and is also answerable in Parliament for the Judicial Arm of the State. He is the Leader of the House in the National Assembly and he chairs Cabinet Meetings. He is also a door tenant of Thomas More Chambers [London].
8. Co-Respondent was appointed Attorney-General following the general

elections of May 2010. He did not obtain a party ticket for the said election in any of the constituencies in Mauritius and having not been elected, he has no right of vote in Parliament. He is the principal legal adviser to the Government of Mauritius.
9. The [Mauritius] CT Power Ltd applied to the Sustainable Development for an EIA Licence in 2X55 MW coal fired power plant in two phases the District of Black River which application Respondent. Ministry of Environment and respect to the setting up of a at Pointe aux Caves, Albion, in had the personal blessing of

10. The aforesaid application was examined by several technicians of the Ministry concerned, environmental consultants, technicians from other related ministries. Respondent’s personal adviser also opined on the environmental impact and even participated in live debates on the air and in the press in the presence of civil societies which had objected to project. 11. On 18 January 2011 the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development rejected the said application for the following reasons:i] the site is not conducive for such a development; ii] the adverse impacts on the residential areas due to the inconveniences and disturbances associated with traffic and iii] the likely health impacts on the inhabitants of the locality and surrounding areas. 12. On 15 February 2011 The [Mauritius] CT Power Ltd appealed on a number of grounds against the Decision/Direction/Order/Notice of the said Minister which appeal is pending the Environmental Appeal Tribunal CN 02/11. There has been an exchange of particulars and the matter is listed on or about June and July 2011 for same to be in shape. 13. The Environment Appeal Tribunal is chaired by Mr Magistrate P Kam Sing and two assessors who are appointed by the Attorney-General to hear and determine appeals. 14. I aver that any party dissatisfied with the determination of the Environment Appeal Tribunal may appeal to the Supreme Court.

15. I aver that on or about 13 April 2011, the Mauritius Tamil Temple Federation
[MTTF] celebrated “Varusha Pirapu” at the IGCC, Phoenix. Several politicians

4
and members of the National Assembly present at the celebrations. Respondent and the CEO of CT Power Ltd were also present at the said festival and Respondent addressed the assembled audience [in local creole dialect of

French] at the said function which speech was aired on the MBC TV and the radios. I have made a faithful transcript of same to the best of my ability and which is herewith reproduced: « Nu koir dan democratisation l’economie parcequi nu oule gagne pli beaucop dimoune contribute dan l’economie et vine banne entrepreneur dan l’economie et Monsieur Murday emm inn cause lor CT Power mo bizin dire ou government totalement pour democratisation l’economie pas veut dire qui nu pe rasse ek lot et prend depi ici nu le gagne pli beaucoup dimoune qui pe contribute dan l’economie mais moi comme Premier Ministre mo emm bizin ena enn souci meme si li enn nomination meme si li n’importe qui zaffer moi mo bizin toujours geutte l’interet national. Nu bizin sure qui nu l’environment proteger couma li bizin proteger. Moi mo ti encourage CTPower le CEO la mo ti encourage nu pas contre mais nu fine gagne enn rapport qui ti mette en doute la capacity pu respecter les norms du l’environment. Ce qui mo finne apparn et mo pe dire dans tout franchaise parcequi quand noune trouve sa nu meme nu fine un peu surpris si vraiment nu pu alle fer enn quitchose qui pu capave pa bon pu Moris nu pa pu fer li. Mais noune surprise dans sa rapport la et nu finne examine li moi mo ti fer enn commentaire mo pas conne qui manier enn development qui pu fer mais dans rapport la meme lo pe dire enna certaine danger potential et mo enna dimoune qui conner Professeur Joel Deronne qui enn expert li finne faire banne suggestion a CTPower cotte capave amiliore leeee.. pu l’environment pour le moin dangereux mais la mo ti unpeu surpris mo pe dire ou franchaiment quand sa inne vine dan conseil de Ministres qui rapport la paraitre defavorabe et enna dimoune fine pose moi question parcequi mo aussi mo conne dimoune dans la communaute qui senti qui fer peutetre qui fer government tension pression de banne lezotte groupe li pas sa dutout monne expliquer qui sa problem la et qui si jamin sa problem la resoudre nou capave regeutte CTPower pe ena aucauine raison ki fer nu pas capave regeutter mais seulment nu bizin fer sure (clappings going on) nu bizin fer sure qui nu respecter le norms de l’environment parcequi sinon li pas pu bon pou nous meme li pas pu bon pu Moris et li pas pu bon pu l’environment mondiale qui nu conner enna enn crise se pourquoi nu va nu va rexamine et nu pu reguette rapport la parcequi enna enn koze ki finne vine dans mo zoreille qui sa rapport la finne soidisant manipuler mo pas capave dire ou si li vrai ou si pas li fausse mais nu va regeutte li parcequi moi mo enna enn souci de justice »
16. Respondent’s aforesaid speech was widely reported in the press on or about 13 and 14 April 2011. I further aver that Respondent’s speech at the aforesaid religious ceremony, quite apart from having a communal overtone, is clearly in contempt of judicial process whereby his conduct is contemptuous. Respondent

5
has publicly announced that the cabinet will review CT Power’s application which matter is subject of an appeal. In contrast, the Deputy Prime Minister refused to answer questions in the National Assembly on 19 April2011 on CT Power Ltd as the matter is sub judice. 17. I aver that Respondent’s stance in reviewing other matters over which his attention was specifically drawn in his capacity as Prime Minister and Leader of the House more particularly in relation to approving the introduction of all bills in the National Assembly suffers from a major disparity. 18. Co-Respondent introduced in the House, the Courts [Amendment] Bill No. 1 of 2011 after having obtained clearance from Respondent and Cabinet. Respondent was informed by me in terms of an email that Co-Respondent had misled him, misled the cabinet, was privy with the judges and at least three members of the Law Reform Commission who had failed to disclose their interests during the workings of the Commission and even thereafter at the time the Report was submitted in October 2010 but he failed to respond. CoRespondent failed to disclose that he is party to proceedings initiated by me before the Supreme Court Re D Hurnam v The DPP & ors SCR 105056 which matter is resisted by him and he is duly represented and arguments have been offered on 22 February 2011 before a bench of five judges. 19. The Law Reform Commission submitted its report on October 2010 and the Bill dated 25 March 2011 was ready for introduction in the National Assembly on the very first sitting in terms of the Order Paper for 29 March 2011. I aver that Co-Respondent following protests against the nature of the proposed amendment withdrew the said bill. 20. The aforesaid bill re-appeared on the Order Paper of 5 April 2011 and CoRespondent accordingly introduced same and the second reading was set for 12 April 2011 on which date he addressed the House and deliberately concealed and suppressed his own interests in the matter to the Speaker and to the House in that he was using the said proposed legislation for his own personal litigation pending the Supreme Court. He neither disclosed the failure of some of the officers of the Law reform Commission who had not disclosed their interests nor those who appointed them in view of several cases pending against them before the Supreme Court ever since 2004.[D Hurnam v Mrs M Gulbul, D Chan Kam Cheong &D Vellien SCR 86712 dated 23.09.2004; D Hurnam v The State of Mauritius & S Boolell & anor SCR 1/673/04 dated 3.11.2004; D H v The State & ors Prime Minister, Y K J Sik Yueng, S Boolell, O B Madhub & D ChanKam Cheong SCR 1/33/07 dated 22.01.2007 & several others] None of the intervenes pointed out such material non-disclosure nor did they gear the debate that the bill breaches section 3[a] of the Constitution and therefore required a three quarter majority. 21. Respondent has still not reacted even after the Bill went through its Third Reading which bill is now awaiting Presidential Assent. Respondent has, in contrast, at the aforesaid religious celebrations reacted immediately in complete disregard of the independence of the Environmental Tribunal seized of the above appeal whereby influencing its decision and or the decision of other

6
courts that would be called upon to decide on any appeal that may be envisaged. 22. Respondent proclaims that he respects all institutions in Mauritius but his conduct nevertheless is contemptuous of the highest institution when prior to the 2005 general elections and immediately thereafter he treated the President of the Republic as “Bap betchaw, Beta Chatwah, Ma nachaninia” and subsequently refused to attend to the swearing in ceremony of his cabinet at Le Reduit and instead summoned the President on the street in Port Louis for the swearing in ceremony. Respondent further refused to attend to the weekly Presidential meetings for several months. In contrast, however, Respondent had the swearing in ceremony after the May 2010 general elections held at Le Reduit this time. 23. In view of my averments of paragraphs 1 to 6, I have an interest in the matter as it is the duty of each and every citizen to oversee that the law of the land is not politically interfered with. I further aver that in the unlikely event that the court rules that I do not have sufficient interests, I am praying that Co-Respondent be ordered to take over the present proceedings. 24. It is therefore urgent and necessary that the Supreme Court do make the following orders:-

A. Declaring and decreeing that Respondent has committed a contempt of Court by publicly stating to the assembled audience [in local creole dialect of French] at the Varusha Pirapu celebrations organised by the Mauritius Tamil Temples Federation [MTTF] on or about 13 April 2011 at the IGCIC amongst others”………..qui sa problem la et qui si jamin sa problem la resoudre nou capave regeutte CTPower pe ena aucauine raison ki fer nu pas capave regeutter mais seulment nu bizin fer sure (clappings going on)……nous conner enna enn crise se pourquoi nu va nu va rexamine et nu pu reguette rapport la parcequi enna enn koze ki finne vine dans mo zoreille qui sa rapport la finne soidisant manipuler mo pas capave dire ou si li vrai ou si pas li fausse mais nu va regeutte li parcequi moi mo enna enn souci de justice’ basically suggesting that cabinet was misled by a report on CT Power ….and that Government is ready to revisit the matter and this at a time when the Environmental Appeal Tribunal is legally seized with an appeal by The Mauritius CT Power [CN 02/11 against The Minister of Environnement and Sustainable Development’s refusal to grant an EIA Licence to Messrs CT Power Ltd which public speech was widely reported on the National TV, Private Radios and in the press whereby he undermined the course of justice and has attempted to influence the decision of the aforesaid Tribunal and or he has influenced the conduct in the litigation process; B. Declaring that Respondent’s aforesaid public speech is aimed at influencing not only the aforesaid Tribunal but all other jurisdictions that may be legally seized with its decision in the event of an appeal that may be undertaken by the relevant parties and

7

C. Committing Respondent to jail for contempt and or he be dealt with for
contempt as the Supreme Court may deem fit in the particular circumstances of the case.

ALTERNATIVELY: D. Directing Co-Respondent to take over the proceedings as a Relator Action should the Court find that Applicant has no locus standi and E. And make any other order as the justice of the case may require.
25. I pray accordingly Solemnly affirmed by the above named deponent] Chambers, Supreme Court, Port Louis ] This 20th day of April 2011 ] Drawn up by me Before Me

D Hurnam Applicant In Person

Chief Court Officer Supreme Court

I certify that this affidavit will be used in Court D Hurnam/Applicant in Person

8

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->