IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

In the matter of :-

Mrs. Roubina JADOO-JAUNBOCUS, a barrister and a member
of the National Assembly, residing at 5 Victor Hugo Street, Beau
Bassin,
APPLICANT

versus

1. Mr. Paul LAM SHANG LEEN, former Judge of the Supreme
Court of Mauritius, residing at Avenue Michael Leal,
Curepipe Road, Curepipe,

2. Mr. Samioullah LAUTHAN, former Minister of the then
Social Security, National Solidarity, Senior Citizen Welfare
and Reform Institutions, a Member of National Human
Rights Commission, residing at Avenue Babonne, Soreze, and

3. Dr. Ravind Kumar DOMUN, Director Health Service,
Ministry of Health and Quality of Life, service to be effected
at his place of work at Dr A.G. Jeetoo Hospital, Volcy
Pougnet Street, Port-Louis.

RESPONDENTS

In the presence of :-

1. The State of Mauritius, represented by the Honourable
Attorney-General, of Attorney-General’s Office, 5th floor,
Renganaden Seeneevassen Building, Jules Koenig Street, Port-
Louis.

1
2. The Honourable Attorney-General, of Attorney-General’s
Office, 5th floor, Renganaden Seeneevassen Building, Jules
Koenig Street, Port-Louis.

3. Mr K Conhye of 13th Floor, NPF Building, Pope Hennessy
Street, Port Louis

CO-RESPONDENTS

I, Mrs. Roubina JADOO-JAUNBOCUS, a barrister and a member of the
National Assembly, residing at 5 Victor Hugo Street, Port-Louis, MAKE
MY SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AS A MUSLIM AND SAY AS
FOLLOWS :-

THE APPLICANT

1. I am the Applicant in the present matter.
2. In May 2000, I was called to the bar of Mauritius. I have been in
private practice until December 2014.
3. On the 15th of December 2014, I was elected at the General
Elections and I thereafter became a member of the National
Assembly. A few days later I was appointed Parliamentary Private
Secretary.
4. Following my appointment as Parliamentary Private Secretary I
have temporarily stopped practising as barrister.
5. On the 16th of November 2016 I was appointed Minister for
Gender Equality and Family Welfare and Child Development. On
the 27th of July 2018 I resigned as Minister.

2
THE COMMISSION

6. On the 14th of July 2015, the then President of the Republic of
Mauritius appointed the Respondents as members of the
Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking in Mauritius (the
“Commission”). Respondent No 1 chaired the Commission and
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were the assessors.
7. The Commission had the following 14 terms of reference :
(i) the scale and extent of illicit drug trade and consumption in
Mauritius and their economic and social consequences;
(ii) sources/points of origin/routes of illicit drugs;
(iii) the channels of entry and distribution of drugs in Mauritius;
(iv) the channels of entry and distribution of drugs in prison;
(v) the availability of new types of drugs, including synthetic and
designer drugs, in Mauritius;
(vi) linkages between drug trafficking, money laundering, terrorist
financing and other crimes;
(vii) the adequacy of existing legislation;
(viii) the operational effectiveness of the various agencies involved
in the fight against drug trafficking;
(ix) the adequacy of the existing resources including human expertise
technology and equipment, to detect and counter any attempt
to introduce drug including designer and synthetic drugs in
Mauritius;
(x) the need for fostering linkages and coordination among various
agencies and other local, regional and international entities
dealing with drug related matters for better strategic direction;
(xi) the effectiveness of drug treatment and rehabilitation
programmes as well as harm reduction strategies, national
prevention, education and drug repression strategies, with
emphasis on youth;
(xii)the tracking of funds in order to identify illicit activities;

3
(xiii) whether there is any evidence of political influence in the drug
trafficking trade; and
(xiv) any other matter connected with or relevant or incidental to
paragraphs (i) to (xiii) above, and make recommendations as
appropriate, including –
(a) such action as is deemed necessary to fight the problem
of importation, distribution and consumption of illicit
drugs in the Republic of Mauritius, and
(b) any statutory amendments as may be necessary to better
safeguard the interests of the public at large.

8. The Co Respondent No 3 was the Secretary to the Commission.
9. By Summon to witness dated the 10th of July 2017, copy of which
is annexed and marked Document RJJ1, the Commission
summoned me to appear before it on the 12th of July 2017, to give
evidence/explanation regarding my conduct, dealing, association
with prisoners convicted for drug offences and/or those on
remand. The Summon informed me that I could be accompanied
by a legal adviser of my choice to assist me at the hearing. Failure
on my part to attend the session or to refuse to answer questions
would be visited with a fine not exceeding five million rupees
imposed by the Commission. I was summoned fail not at my peril.
10. The Commission started its public hearing on the 4th of November
2015 and completed its proceedings on the 14th of March 2018.
11. On the 12th of July 2017, I appeared before the Commission. Mr N.
Ramburn SC assisted me. The hearing was in the presence of the
public and the media. I was interviewed under solemn affirmation.
12. The Commission asked me to provide explanations on several
matters, the salient ones being on :
(i) a mobile telephone communication with Mr Veeren Peroumal, a
prisoner serving a long sentence as a drug trafficker ;
(ii) an allegation that I had visited 37 prisoners “at one go”, i.e. all of
them grouped together on a single occasion and that this was
an “unsolicited visit”, i.e. without the prisoners ;

4
(iii) a number of such allegedly “unsolicited” visits I made to
prisoners serving sentence for drug trafficking when,
according to the Commission, they were not my clients ;
(iv) the purposes of the said visits;
(v) the manner in which the visits were carried out;
(vi) the impression, apparently entertained by the Commission, that
these group visits in my presence facilitated the exchange of
information on drug transactions, telephone “SIM” cards and
prohibited articles among drug traffickers in prison ; and
(vii) the conclusion by the Commission that I was part of a team
of Counsel and drug traffickers engaged in some sort of
conspiracy
13. As I needed certain particulars and documents to provide the
written explanations to the Commission, by letter dated the 18th July
2017 Mr. N. Ramburn SC applied for the following particulars and
documents, namely :
(i) a copy of the list of all my alleged unsolicited visits;
(ii) the particulars of the prisoners I met in groups of 10, 15
and 37 and the dates of such meetings;
(iii) the particulars of my alleged visit to detainee Mrs. Bibi
Amina Noordally;
(iv) the particulars of my alleged visit to the women’s section
of the Prison on the 16th of December 2014;
(v) the particulars of my alleged visit to a detainee who is an
Australian lady national at the women’s section of the
Prison; and
(vi) details of the phone/mobile , logs with convicted persons.
A copy of letter dated 18th July 2017 is annexed
and marked Document RJJ2.
14. By letter dated the 31st July 2017, the Commission gave only the list
of the Prisoners whom I visited. The Commission requested me to
submit my written explanations by the 15th August 2017, which I
did. A copy of letter dated 31st July 2017 is annexed and
marked Document RJJ3.

5
THE REPORT

15. On the 26th of July 2018, the Report on the Commission (the
“Report”) was submitted to the acting President of the Republic of
Mauritius. A copy of the Report is annexed and marked
Document RJJ4.
16. On the 27th of July 2018 the Prime Minister of Mauritius made the
Report public.
17. Chapter 19 of the Report covers the profession of barristers from
pages 218 to 238.
18. Subheading 3 at pages 228 and 229 of the Report contains the
findings of the Commission against me.
19. The Commission found, in summary, that :-
(i) I was in communication with Mr Veeren Peroumal, whilst
the latter was serving his sentence and had thereby
communicated with a prisoner through unauthorized
means which is an offence under the law;
(ii) my visits to prisoners and detainees were unsolicited;
(iii) I was the accomplice of Mrs Maria Cupidon to facilitate
onward transmission of funds to Mr Kamasho;
(iv) I was accordingly involved in money-laundering; and
(v) my versions in relation to the phone call received from a
prisoner (Mr Veeren Peroumal) was not convincing.
20. The Commission recommended that an enquiry be instituted
against me as regards my communication to prisoners through
unauthorized means being an offence under the law.
21. The Commission left it to the relevant authorities to take whatever
action they deem fit against me “if the facts are proved.”
22. I am challenging the findings of the Commission against me.
23. On or about the 6th of August 2018 I made an application with the
Office of the President for a copy of the proceedings of the
Commission in relation to my deposition, after being informed that

6
my previous application with Co Respondent No 3 was wrongly
directed.

FINDING CONCERNING MRS MARIA CUPIDON AND MR KAMASHO IN
BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS

24. The Commission accepted and acted upon information from its
investigating team to the effect that I “had allegedly received on the 29th
of April 2008 the sum of Rs 50 000 from Mrs Maria Cupidon (arrested for
importation of heroin) for onwards transmission to drug trafficker, Kamasho,
convicted for importation of heroin, who is still in jail, and also still very active
according to the Prison Administration. The information was obtained from the
bank account of Mrs Cupidon.” The Commission then found that “This
is very serious matter as it appears that she (the Applicant) had been the
middleman in transmitting money to a drug trafficker, a likelihood of being an
accomplice in money laundering.”
25. I do not know Mrs Maria Cupidon or Mr Kamasho and I have
never met them.
26. I have never received any money from or on behalf of Mrs Maria
Cupidon.
27. The information that I have received Rs 50 000 from Mrs Maria
Cupidon to remit to Mrs Kamasho is completely false. The finding
that I have thus been an accomplice in money laundering is
perverse.
28. The Commission admits that it has never put the allegation that I
had taken Rs 50 000 from Mrs Maria Cupidon to be remitted to Mr
Kamasho and the accusation that in so doing I was an accomplice
in money laundering, to me on the spurious ground that it got that
information very late after my passage before the Commission.
29. At whatever time that the Commission received that information,
before acting upon such information or finding it to be true, the
Commission was under a legal obligation to observe the rules of
natural justice and fairness in giving me an opportunity to reply to
this serious allegation and accusation, before acting on such
information to make an adverse finding against me.

7
FINDING OF UNSOLICITED VISITS TO PRISON IS
UNREASONABLE AND BIASED

30. The Commission found that on the 30th of January 2009 I visited 17
detainees from 10:45 hours to 13:45 hours without being solicited.
The Commission found that I could not be oblivious of the risk
that I would in fact have been aiding the grouping of traffickers
with a view to facilitating exchange of information between them
on drug transactions or exchange of sim cards and other prohibited
articles.
31. According to the Commission one of the detainees in the group
refused to see me.
33. These findings of the Commission are not based on evidence and
are unreasonable and biased.
34. As a matter of fact, in or about March 2007, late Mr Fazil
Sumodhee came to my Chambers to retain my services as regards
his two brothers, Messrs Khaleeloudin Sumodhee and Sheik Imran
Sumodhee. The latter had been convicted for having set fire to
what is known as the L’Amicale Building causing the death of seven
persons and were sentenced to imprisonment for life.
35. Late Fazil Sumodhee instructed me to apply to the President to
exercise his prerogative of mercy in favour of his two brothers,
failing which to apply for the re trial of the case.
36. Late Fazil Sumodhee retained the services of Mr B. Rampootab as
my instructing Attorney.
37. An application was made to the President for a reduction of the
sentence of the Sumodhee brothers and/or for the grant of a free
pardon to them.
38. On the 18th of June 2007 the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act
2007 came into force and amended the Criminal Procedure Act by
inserting a new Section 150A which provides that where under any
enactment other than the Criminal Code a Court is empowered or
required to pass a sentence of penal servitude for life, the sentence

8
may, at the discretion of the Court be for a term of not less than 3
years and not exceeding 60 years.
39. On the 19th of September 2007 the full bench of the Supreme
Court delivered judgment in the case of Philibert v The State (2007
SCJ 274) and held, inter alia, that the impugned section 222(1) of
the Criminal Code and section 41(3) of the Dangerous Drugs Act
were unconstitutional only in so far as they provided for a
substantial mandatory prison sentence of 45 years and that the
relevant sections should be read down in such a way that upon
conviction an offender would be liable to a prison sentence in the
discretion of the Court but which would carry a maximum of 45
year. A copy of the Judgment is annexed and marked
document RJJ5.
40. On the 14th of November 2008, the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council delivered a judgment in the case of Callachand v The
State [2008 UKPC49], where it held, inter alia, that any time spent
in custody by a detainee/prisoner prior to sentencing should be
taken into account to result in an arithmetical deduction when
assessing the length of the sentence that is to be served by an
Accused party found to be guilty. A copy of the Judgment is
annexed and marked document RJJ6.
41. I studied how the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2007, the
judgment in the cases of Philibert v The State and Callachand v The
State could help to reduce the sentence of the Sumodhee brothers.
42. Around the same time in 2008 other clients retained the services of
Mr G. Ramdoyal, Attorney as well as my services to have their
sentences reviewed.
43. In 2008 I visited the Sumodhee brothers as they also requested my
advice to see whether there were other ways to have their sentence
reviewed. The Sumodhee brothers were also consulting other
Counsel on the subject of a new trial.
44. On the 3rd of December 2008 ten applications on behalf of Mr
Sonalall Beesoony, Mr Anandath Boodhoo, Mr Mahendra Urjoon,
Mr Kamal Baboo Beema, Mr Abdoolah Auckbarally, Mr Abdool

9
Swaley Boodhoo, Mr Mamode Aniff Coowar, Mr Satianand
Urjoon, Mr Randeersing Unmole and Mr Joseph Mbkotwane were
lodged before the Supreme Court to have their respective sentences
reviewed. Copies of the Motion Paper, Notice of Motion and
Minutes for the cases of Messrs Sonalall Beesoony, Anandath
Boodhoo, Mahendra Urjoon, Kamal Baboo Beema, Abdoolah
Auckbarally, Abdool Swaley Boodhoo, Mamode Aniff Coowar,
Satianand Urjoon and Randeersing Unmole are annexed and
marked document RJJ7 (I) – RJJ7 (IX) respectively.
45. On the 18th of June 2009, I was instructed in a Plaint with
Summons in the name of 10 Prisoners as Plaintiffs, namely Mr
Sham Parmessur, Mr Mohamed Alawy, Mr Jean Claude Rose, Mr
Hansraj Unmol, Mr Datta Nunkoo, Mr Sokalingum Veeren, Mr
Eshan Mosafeer, Mr Seetana Idriss Abdalla, Mr Nadeem Mohamed
Bissessur and Mr Riad Mohamed Bissessur before the Supreme
Court to have their sentences reviewed. A copy of the Plaint with
Summons, proceedings of the 18th of June, 14th of July, 15th of
September, 15th of October and 17th of November 2009 and
Plea of the Defendant and Co Defendant is annexed and
marked document RJJ8.
46. Around the same time there was much tension at the Central Prison
of Beau Bassin (the “Prison”) as the prisoners felt that their
sentences should be reduced following the Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act 2007 and the judgment in the cases of Philibert v
The State and Callachand v The State. The prison authorities were
also very concerned lest they were maintaining people imprisoned
longer than what was allowed by Law.
47. The prisoners had set up a Detainees Work Team to liaise with
Counsel, including myself to advise and assist them for a review of
their sentence. A letter dated 2nd of July 2008 was addressed to me
by the prisoners in this respect. A copy of letter dated 2 July 2008
together with annexures is annexed and marked document
RJJ9.

10
48. On the 30th of January 2009 while visiting my clients at the Prison, a
prison officer asked me to meet with his superior. I was taken to a
room where I met a senior prison officer. Thereupon, I was taken
to what appeared to me to be a lecture hall. A number of prisoners
were in that hall. So were a number of prison officers, two of
whom were by my side. The whole of the meeting was in the
presence of these prison officers. The prisoners told me they were
aware of recent developments in the law and wanted to know
whether they could apply for a review of their sentence in view of
these recent developments.
49. Prior to that meeting, I received a letter dated the 2nd July 2008 as
well as a copy of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2007, a
copy of the Judgment in the case of Philibert, newspaper extracts, a
list of prisoners bearing as part of its headings ‘Life Imprisonment’,
‘30 Years Imprisonment’ and ‘45 Years Imprisonment’, letters to
the then Honourable Prime Minister and the then Honourable
Attorney General and a booklet of 136 pages consisting of several
letters addressed to various persons. Some of these documents bear
the seal of the Central Prisons, Mauritius. All the documents except
the letter are type written. The documents purportedly emanated
from that group of prisoners. This “Team” even thanked the then
Commissioner of Prisons Mr V. Naraynen – Vide Booklet.
(Documents RJJ10 (I) to (VIII)).
50. As regards the second meeting with 15 Prisoners and other
meetings referred to at Page 228 by the Commission, these were
not group meetings per se. The Plaint with Summons, Document
RJJ8, shows that the ten prisoners were the ten Plaintiffs in one and
single case. As such I visited the prisoners as per instructions
whenever the need arose to work with them.
51. I prepared a bundle of documents consisting of all the applications
made for a review of sentence and the letter of the “Detainees
Work Team” dated the 2nd July 2008, which I remitted to the
Commission on the 15th of August 2017. I also included a booklet
compiled by the Detainees Work Team which was attached to the

11
letter of acknowledgment dated the 2nd July 2008, for the
Commission.
52. Any reasonable person considering the said bundle would have
realised that my visits to the prisoners were never unsolicited.
53. It is clear that the Commission did not read the bundle that I sent
to them on the 15th of August 2017. It is clear that at page 221 of
the Report, the Commission refers to my bundle, also, when it
writes that from a quick perusal it considered documents produced
before the Commission as being irrelevant.
54. The Commission is manifestly biased in its test to determine
whether Counsel’s visits to prisoners is solicited or not in as much
as the said test is not uniformly applied to all Counsel. The test is
thus partisan and achieves double standards.

FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN IN COMMUNICATION
WITH MR VEEREN PEROUMAL TROUGH UNAUTHORISED MEANS
COMMITTING AN OFFENCE UNDER THE LAW IS UNREASONABLE.

55. The Commission found established that I have been in
communication with the most notorious convicted drug trafficker,
Mr Veeren Peroumal while the latter was serving his sentence.
56. The Commission reached that finding because I had visited Mr.
Veeren Peroumal the day after I had received a phone
communication from him. I had visited a female prisoner, going by
the name of Mrs Bibi Ameenah Noordally, the mother in law of Mr
Veeren Peroumal with Counsel Mr Rex Stephen.
57. This finding is unreasonable.
58. I visited Mrs Bibi Ameenah Noordally in 2008.
59. In 2008 I did not know whether Mrs Bibi Ameenah Noordally was
the mother in law of Mr Veeren Peroumal and, as at to day, I do
not know when Mrs Bibi Noordally became the mother in law of
Mr Veeren Peroumal.
60. I visited Mr Veeren Peroumal on the 3rd of June 2014.
61. On the 2nd of June 2014 at 13 : 34 hours I received a phone call on
my mobile phone. I knew that it was a mobile phone calling me

12
from the number that appeared on the screen of my mobile phone.
It was the first and only time that this mobile phone called me.
62. The call lasted for 25 seconds. The caller told me that he wished to
retain my services. As soon as the caller identified himself as Mr
Veeren Peroumal I told him that I was putting an end to the
conversation because it was commonly known that Mr Veeren
Peroumal was in Prison. I told him that I would visit him at the
Prison on the following day.
63. The name of Mr Veeren Peroumal did not appear on the screen of
my mobile phone. I do not have the name of Mr Veeren Peroumal
among my contacts on my mobile phone.
64. No reasonable Commission can consider a phone call which lasts
for 25 seconds from a first time unidentified caller can amount to
communication through unauthorized means as to be an offence
under the law.

FAILURE BY THE COMMISSION TO OBSERVE THE LAW

65. The Commission has not observed Sections 7 and 13 of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act 1944.
66. The Commission has failed to allow me to cross examine any
person who deponed against me and or provided adverse
information against me.
67. The Commission has failed to confront me with the documents it
now refers to in its Report, namely the itemized bill of a sim card in
the case of Mr Veeren Peroumal and the bank statement of Mrs
Maria Cupidon before making adverse findings against me.
68. The itemized bill of the sim card of Mr Veeren Peroumal or of any
sim card for the phone call of the 2nd of June 2014 will show that
the call lasted for 25 seconds only and this is the only call I received
from any prisoner in detention at the Prison.
69. The bank statements of Mrs Maria Cupidon cannot show any
remittance or transfer of money to me as I have never received any
money from her.

13
70. The Commission failed to allow me to challenge any information
which was detrimental to me.

PRAYER

71. The following findings at sub heading 3 at Pages 228 and 229 Report are
judicially reviewable by the Supreme Court of Mauritius, namely:-
(i) that from an itemised bill of a sim card obtained in prison I have been in
communication with the most notorious drug trafficker Mr Veeren
Peroumal whilst the latter was serving his sentence;
(ii) that I have thereby communicated with a prisoner through unauthorized means
and I have committed an offence under the law;
(iii) that I made unsolicited visits to prisoners at the Central Prison of Beau Bassin;
(iv) that I provided the opportunity to drug traffickers in prison to exchange
information between them on drug transactions or exchange of sim cards or
other prohibited articles;
(v) that on 29 April 2008 I have received Rs 50 000 from Mrs Maria Cupidon
(arrested for importation of heroin) for remittance to Mr Kamasho a drug
trafficker as evidenced from the bank account of Mrs Maria Cupidon; and
(vi) that thereby I had committed the offence of money laundering.
72. I pray that the Supreme Court declares that the findings set out at
paragraph 71 above are, as the case may be, in breach of natural justice, in
breach of fairness, unreasonable, biased and wrong in law.
73. I therefore pray the Supreme Court of Mauritius for leave to apply:-

(A) For an Order declaring that the findings set out below as
contained at pages 228 and 229 of the Report are, as the case
may be, in breach of natural justice, in breach of fairness,
unreasonable, biased and wrong in law , namely :
(i) that from an itemised bill of a sim card obtained in prison I have
been in communication with the most notorious drug
trafficker Mr Veeren Peroumal whilst the latter was serving
his sentence;

14
(ii) that I have thereby communicated with a prisoner through
unauthorized means and that I have therefore committed an
offence under the law;
(iii) that I made unsolicited visits to prisoners;
(iv) that I have provided the opportunity to drug traffickers in prison
to exchange information between them on drug transactions
or exchange of sim cards or other prohibited articles;
(v) that on 29 April 2008 I received Rs. 50 000 from Mrs Maria
Cupidon (arrested for importation of heroin) for remittance
to Mr Kamasho a drug trafficker and that the evidence
emanated from the bank account of Mrs Maria Cupidon; and
(vi) that thereby I have committed the offence of money laundering;
And/Or

(B) For such other Order or Orders the Supreme Court may deem
fit and proper to make in the circumstances of the case including
a direction for the Respondents themselves or through the Co
Respondent No 3 and or Co-Respondents to bring up before
the Supreme Court of Mauritius the Official Report and or all
the proceedings and/or documents and/or files and/or records
of the Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking in Mauritius,
appointed by Her Excellency the then President of Mauritius on
14 July 2015 chaired by the Respondent No.1 with the
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as members, for the Declaration
prayed for by the Applicant at paragraph 72 (A) above.

WITH COSTS.

74. I therefore pray accordingly.

Solemnly affirmed by the abovenamed)
deponent at Chambers, New Court House)
Supreme Court of Mauritius, Port Louis)
This ……………….day of August 2018)

Drawn up by me Before me

15
Jaykar Gujadhur SA
Attorney for the Applicant

I certify that this Affidavit forms part of an application to be entered before the
Supreme Court of Mauritius.

Jaykar Gujadhur SA
Attorney for the Applicant

16