You are on page 1of 6

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In Re:-

Devendranath Hurnam also know as Dev Hurnam, a British Qualified Barrister, [UK and Wales], Chief Executive of Human Rights [Action Group] of 22

Bourbon Street, Port Louis

Applicant

v

K P Matadeen, SPJ c/o Supreme Court, Port Louis

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, struck off the Roll of Law Practitioners.

3. I am a well known figure in Mauritius, and sometimes an outspoken critic 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

2

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.

4.

On 20 th of April 2011, I affirmed an affidavit in support of contempt proceedings against the Prime Minister of Mauritius. On the same day I deposited in the Registry of the Supreme Court a copy of my Motion paper, Notice of Motion and a copy of my affidavit in support of my motion after paying all the required fees. I further caused all relevant documents to be served on the Respondent and Co-Respondent. The Usher of the Supreme Court effected service. I attach a certified true copy of the aforesaid of documents duly served as Annex X.

5.

The aid motion was listed by the Registry to 02 May 2011and was also set out on the Roll of the Chief Usher. Respondent was Ag Chief Justice despatching all formal matters instead and in lieu of the Chief Justice in Court No.1 on 02 May 2011.

6.

The matter was called accordingly and I moved for Leave to appear personally in order to move in terms of my motion. Law Officers Madhub and Maghooa were equally on their feet and before any statement was made by them [their clients were not present in Court in the said contempt proceedings] I reproduce the verbatim exchange between Respondent and I as far as I re-call since I have been informed that there is no record of the case in the Registry of the Court as I was shut out from making my motion:-

“Respondent: Before I grant you leave, you have to amend some of the averments of your affidavit; Applicant: May I be informed which part/s of the affidavit; Respondent: Paragraph 1 and in paragraph 2: …outrageously struck off the Roll of Law Practitioners; in the Supreme Court such averments cannot be accepted; Applicant: This is no reason but in any event, I am prepared to make a statement that I shall waive that part of the paragraph which is not agreeable to you; Respondent: This must be by way of an affidavit and you may come any time, the doors of the Supreme Court is always open, I shall give you leave, the Supreme Court in not Ritz Hotel; you are intelligent enough; Mr Usher call the next case…”

7.

I

was shut out by Respondent from proceeding with my motion on the

basis of his statement that I have to amend that part of my affidavit where

I have averred that my name was outrageously struck off the Roll of Law

Practitioners and the Law Officers did not address the court. I have been informed that a case file is opened only after a motion is made and

therefore, I am not in a position to produce a certified copy of the

3

proceedings. I am of the view that the Supreme Court being a court of record, the proceedings ought to have been recorded in order to allow any litigant to appeal against any illegal order or any order in excess of jurisdiction or issue process for any abuse of authority by a Judge.

8. I aver that the reason set out for refusing me leave to appear in person is against the express provisions of statutory and Constitutional provisions and there was no valid reason invoked by Respondent when he refused me leave to appear in person. Respondent ought to have allowed the legal representatives of the parties to take any appropriate stand and not jump into the ring thereby leaving the impression that Respondent held a brief for the Prime Minister and the Attorney General or that he used a colourable device simply to have the matter delayed pending the proclamation of the Courts’ Amendment Bill No. 1 of 2011 [Vexatious Litigation] which went through third reading on 12 April 2011 and is awaiting Presidential Assent.

9. I further aver that Respondent did grant me leave to appear in person in the following cases:--Re D Hurnam v Yeung Kam John Yeung Sik Yuen SCR 104492 [Annex Y]; DPP v D Hurnam SCR 104493 [Annex Y1]. I attach as Annex Y and Y1, a certified true copy of my affidavit dated 13 August 2010 and a copy of the Minutes of Proceedings dated 6 September 2010; a certified true copy of the first page of my affidavit dated September 2010 together with a copy of the minutes of proceedings dated 06 September 2010 respectively. I made exactly the same averments to the effect that my name was outrageously struck off the Roll of Law Practitioners and same are highlighted and at no time did Respondent make any remark nor did he invite me to amend such averments. In several cases against Respondent personally, he simply denied such averments and did not move through his legal advisers to have such averments struck out.

10. I aver that I am entitled to make such averments and the granting of leave to appear in person has no relevance to such averments. However, in order not to embarrass any other Judge, I have personally decided not to aver same in this affidavit and I maintain that I am innocent.

11. I aver that before my above matter was called, there was another motion for contempt by Barclays Leasing Co. Ltd v V Chummun and others which was called for the first time. The Usher called the names of all Respondents and as I represented Respondent No.2 in

4

my capacity as Authorised Representative and Director, I followed the first Respondent [in the matter] on the floor of the court. Respondent made the following remarks to my address: Who is the person there? I replied that I am representative of Respondent No.2 and he thought that he had belittled me when in truth and in fact he failed to protect the integrity of the court.

12. I have reason to believe that Respondent’s conduct discloses the hallmarks of personal vengeance and he should have refrained from taking my cases instead of referring same to other judges as there are several cases pending against him. I have also averred that that he is one of the most errant judges of this Republic in view of the numbers of cases which have been overturned by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council [10 out of 12 cases].

13. I further aver that following the setting aside of my application for contempt against the Chief Justice on 4 November 2010, Respondent and the other Judge who comprised the bench have been cited as Co-Respondents in connection with their breach of Articles 4 and 5 of the Civil Code, in my application for permission to appeal the order of 4 November 2010 was issued on 12 January 2011 to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council [Re JCPC

2011/0002

14. In view of the contemptuous conduct of Respondent, I had no option to proceed with my motion and I was shut out.

15. I aver that the Respondent, by acting as aforesaid, has committed contempt of court and it is, therefore, urgent and necessary that the above court do make the following orders:

A. Declaring and decreeing that Respondent has committed a contempt of Court by refusing me Leave to proceed with a Motion for Contempt against Navinchandra Ramgoolam, the Prime Minister in the presence of the Attorney-General [Unreturned] on 02 May 2011 whereby he interfered with the course of justice and influenced my conduct as a Litigant In Person and barred me timely access to Court in a matter of urgency and public interest;

B. Declaring and decreeing that Respondent’s oral Order refusing me Leave to appear as Litigant In Person in the matter set out supra is clearly in contempt of Respondent’s own previous decisions in Re D Hurnam v Yeung Kam John Yeung Sik Yuen SCR 104492; DPP v

5

D

Hurnam SCR 104493 wherein he granted me leave to appear

in

person and in which proceedings I had specifically made the

same averments as in the matter under A above in that “ That my name was outrageously struck off the Roll of Law Practitioners” to which he took exception and which matter he ordered me to amend and strike out on 02 May 2011 as a condition precedent to granting me Leave to appear and move in terms of the motion;

C. Declaring and decreeing that Respondent is in clear contempt of the Judicial Committee’s Judgment in D Hurnam v Paratian 2 WLR 790 and in contempt of the Constitution;

D. 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 and

E. And make any other order as the justice of the case may require.

16. I pray accordingly.

Solemnly affirmed by the above named deponent] Chambers, Supreme Court, Port Louis

]

This 03rd day of May 2011

]

Drawn up by me

D Hurnam

Applicant

Before Me

Chief Court Officer Supreme Court

I certify that this affidavit will be used in Court

D Hurnam/Applicant In Person

6