IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

In the matter of:

Peter URICEK, currently serving sentence in prison at ZVJS Banska,
Komenskeho 7, 975 28 Banska Bystrica 1, Bystrica, Slovak Republic,
duly represented in Mauritius by his agent and proxy
Applicant
v
1. The Honourable Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Home
Affairs and External Communications, Minister for Rodrigues,
Outer Islands and Territorial Integrity, of Prime Minister's
Office, Treasury Building, Port Louis
2. ThePassport and Immigration Officer, of Sterling House, 9 -11,
Lislet Geoffroy Street, Port Louis
3. The Commissioner of Police, service to be effected at Police
Headquarters, situate at Line Barracks, Police Louis
4. The Director of Civil Aviation, of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam
International Airport, Plaine Magnien
Respondents
In the presence of:
1. The Honourable Attorney General, of Renganaden
Seeneevassen Building, Port-Louis
2. The Director of Public Prosecutions, service to be effected at
Garden Tower, La Poudriere Street, Port Louis
Co-Respondents
I, Marie Joyce Doreen ANTOINE, unemployed, of 14, Residence Les Cygne, Morcellement

Swan, Pereybere, holder of National Identity Card bearing No A2703733101366

MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT:

1. I am a citizen of Mauritius. I am the flance and agent and proxy of the Applicant in the
above matter. I am duly authorised to represent the Applicant in Mauritius in judicial

proceedings and to swear the present affidavit on his behalf, by virtue of the annexed
Power of Attorney dated 15 July 2022, duly registered in Mauritius on 25/07/2022
in Reg and duly deposited before the Registry of the Supreme Court of Mauritius

(ANNEX 1}. The facts, things and matters stated hereunder are to my personal

knowledge.

2. Applicant is a citizen of the Slovak Republic, born on 28 May 1970.

A copy of the bio data page of Applicant's passport issued by the Slovak Republic

bearing No BA0705581 is annexed and marked ANNEX 2.

1
3. Respondent No 1 is the Prime Minister of the Republic of Mauritius and is the Minister
to whom the responsibility for the subjects of immigration, defence and internal

security are assigned. He is also the Minister responsible for the subject of civil

aviation.

4. The Respondent No 2 is the "immigration officer'' who is a public officer designated

by the Respondent No 1 to carry out the provisions of the Immigration Act. By law,
the "immigration officer" includes any other officer under the authority of the officer

so designated.

5. The Respondent No 3 is the Commissioner of Police and is a prepose of the State of

Mauritius. He has the command of the Mauritius Police Force under him. All officers

forming part of the Mauritius Police Force fall under the command of the Respondent
No 3 and these officers are also prepose of the State of Mauritius.

6. The Respondent No 4 is the Director of Civil Aviation in Mauritius.

7. The Co-Respondent No 1 is principal legal advisor to the Government of Mauritius.

The Co- Respondent No 1 also has the responsibility to initiate extradition proceedings

under the Extradition Act.

8. The Co-Respondent No 2 is the Director of Public Prosecutions and has the power to
inter alia institute and undertake criminal proceedings in Mauritius.

9. On 19 April 2019, Applicant was granted an Occupation Permit by the Passport and

Immigration Office to stay and work in Mauritius as a Professional with EURO-COLA

(MAURITIUS) LTD until April 2022, under section 9A of the Immigration Act. On the

same date, Applicant was also issued with a Unique Identifier (UID) for Non-Citizens.

A copy of Applicant's OCCUPATION PERMIT is annexed and marked ANNEX 3.

A copy of Applicant's UID for Non-Citizens is annexed and marked ANNEX 4.

2
10. On 22 February 2022, by way of proecipe dated 22 February 2022 supported by

affidavit dated the same date, Co-Respondent No 1 made an application before the

District Court of Port Louis for the Applicant's extradition under section 18 of the

Extradition Act (cause No 1670/2022).

A copy of the of the application for Applicant's extradition under section 18 of the

Extradition Act bearing cause No 1670/2022 (Proecipe and Affidavit, both dated 22

February 2022) is annexed and marked ANNEX 5.

11. On the same date, Co-Respondent No 1 applied for and obtained a warrant of arrest

dated 22 February 2022 under section 15 of the Extradition Act (cause No 1671/2022)

against the Applicant.

A copy of the application for the warrant of arrest under section 15 of the Extradition

Act bearing cause No 1671/2022 (Proecipe and Affidavit, both dated 22 February

2022) is annexed and marked ANNEX 6.

A copy of the warrant of arrest issued by Her Honour, the Senior District Magistrate

of the District Court of Port Louis (Third Division), on 22 February 2022 is annexed

and marked ANNEX 7.

12. On 23 February 2022, Applicant was arrested by the Police at the registered office

address of EURO-COLA (MAURITIUS) LTD situate at 15, Meldrum Lead Business Centre,

Beau Bassin, at which address Applicant was also staying whenever he was not staying

at my place in Pereybere.

13. On 24 February 2022, Applicant was brought before the District Court of Port Louis

(Third Division) under section 16 of the Act (Cause No 1671/22), on which date

Applicant's legal advisors made a motion for him to be released on bail and informed

3
 the Court that the application for Applicant's extradition (Cause No 1670/2022) was

resisted.

14. The Co-Respondent No 1 objected to the Applicant's release on bail.

15. On 28 February 2022, Applicant's bail hearing took place before the District Court of

Port Louis (Third Division).

16. On 09 March 2022, Applicant was released on bail upon on a number of conditions

and the extradition hearing was fixed on 10 March 2022.

A copy of the Bail Ruling dated 09 March 2022 is annexed and marked ANNEX 8.

17. Applicant avers that ever since his release on bail, he has stringently complied with all

bail conditions imposed upon him by the Court. After his release on bail, Applicant

was always staying at my place of residence in Pereybere.

18. On 10 March 2022, at the extradition hearing Applicant's legal advisors moved to file

an affidavit dated 07 March 2022, in reply to the affidavit of the Co-Respondent No

l's dated 22 February 2022. An advance copy of Applicant's affidavit in reply dated

07 March 2022 was communicated to the Court and to Co-Respondent No 1 on 07

March 2022.

19. The Co-Respondent No 1 objected to the filing of Applicant's affidavit in reply and

Applicant's legal advisors raised the following Preliminary Objections (which are

contained in Applicant's affidavit in reply dated 07 March 2022) -

"The present extradition proceedings are unlawful, illegal, tainted by

procedural impropriety and in breach of the Act for the following reasons -

A. The Applicant has wrongfully proceeded to make the present application

under section 18 of the Act (cause No 1670/2022} before applying and

4
 obtaining a warrant of arrest dated 22 February 2022 under section 15 of

the Act (cause No 1671/2022}. [... ]

B. Section 15 of the Act is only applicable where there is an extradition treaty

between the requesting State and the receiving State. I am advised that,
there being no extradition treaty between the Slovak Republic and the
Republic of Mauritius, the arrest warrant was improperly and unlawfully
obtained by the Applicant and must therefore be recalled for being ultra
vires and in breach of section 15(2) of the Act.

C. In any event, my extradition is being sought more than 1 y; years after the

request for my extradition was made by the requesting State under section
10 of the Act. There has been unreasonable, inordinate and unconscionable
delay in making the present application inasmuch as more than 1 y; years
has lapsed since the request for my extradition was made by the requesting
State.

D. It will be unfair, unjust and oppressive and in breach of my right to a fair

hearing within a reasonable time as provided by section 10 of the
Constitution of Mauritius to extradite me after so many years have passed
given that the alleged offences date as far back as 2015, which is more than
7 years ago.

E. I am being tried in absentia in the Slovak Republic, the final hearing is

scheduled to take place on the 23'dof March 2022 and there is a strong
likelihood that judgment will be rendered in absentia under the laws of the
Slovak Republic. [... ]

F. I did not get sufficient notice of the trial in the Slovak Republic and have no
assurances that I can benefit from a re-trial in my presence.

5
 G. The international arrest warrant (Annex A to AAl) falls short of the
requirements of section 490(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the
Slovak Republic 2005. [... ]

H. The indictment does not disclose offences under the laws of Mauritius. If
. any of the two alleged offences in the indictment constitute an offence
under the laws of Mauritius, I must be made aware of it with adequate
precision. The Applicant has failed to disclose which relevant provisions of
the laws of Mauritius make such alleged acts in the indictment constitute
offences under the laws of Mauritius."

20. The extradition case (Cause No 1670/22) was then fixed for arguments to 18 March

2022 on the issue as to whether or not Applicant's affidavit in reply should be allowed

to be filed.

21. In a Ruling delivered on 20 April 2022, after few postponements, the objection of the

Co-Respondent No 1 to the filing of an affidavit in reply by the Applicant was set aside.

Applicant was therefore was allowed to file his affidavit in reply dated 07 march 2022.

A copy of the Ruling dated 20 April 2022 is annexed and marked ANNEX 9.

A copy of Applicant's affidavit in reply dated 07 March 2022, together with all

documents annexed thereto, is annexed and marked ANNEX 10.

22. The extradition case bearing cause No 1670/2022 was then fixed for arguments on

Applicant's preliminary objections to 11 May 2022.

23. Applicant wishes to state that he cannot be classified as a fugitive who has escaped

trial in the Slovak Republic for the reasons set forth under paragraphs llA to llM his
affidavit dated 07 March 2022 (Annex 10, above). A chronology of key events until

6
 Applicant's arrest in Mauritius on 22 February 2022 is set out at paragraphs 9.1 to 9.30

of his affidavit dated 07 March 2022 (Annex 10, above).

24. Applicant's Occupation Permit expired on 18 April 2022. On or about 31 March 2022,

Applicant made an application for the renewal of his Occupation Permit via the on line

system of the Economic Development Board. Applicant does not have a copy of his

application as same was made online. However, the reference number given was

EDB_OP_2022_958.

25. Applicant avers that he was never communicated with the outcome of his application

for the renewal of his Occupation Permit.

26. Applicant has been in a serious relationship with me, Ms. Joyce ANTOINE, a citizen of

Mauritius. We got engaged in or about October 2020 with the intention of getting

married. In or about March 2022, we submitted all relevant documents to the Central

Civil Status Office in Port Louis for our civil marriage to take place on the scheduled

date of 01 April 2022. A few days before the date scheduled, our marriage got

cancelled because Respondent No 1 put in an objection.

27. We were expecting and awaiting a hearing on the objection of Respondent No 1 but

we were never convened, although we were told that a hearing would take place.

28. Applicant avers that he has developed strong family ties in Mauritius. Further, my

minor child from my previous relationship considers the Applicant to be her father.

Applicant was treating her and caring for her like his own child.

29. On 22 April 2022, Applicant was convicted of a serious offence and was sentenced to

22 years imprisonment. On the same day an appeal was lodged by my lawyers in

Slovakia on my behalf. Applicant avers that he was tried in absentia and a heavy

sentence of 22 years imprisonment was imposed upon him still in his absence. He was

tried, convicted and sentenced in his absence. Applicant stands advised that by

section 9 of the Extradition Act, a request for the extradition of a person by a foreign

7
 State may not be favourably considered where - it relates to the imposition or

execution of a sentence, judgment has been rendered in absentia in that State, unless

sufficient safeguards are guaranteed by the requesting State. Applicant was never

communicated with any such safeguards.

30. In the afternoon of 25 April 2022, Applicant was informed that at 10 a.m of the same

date, a Slovak Republic aircraft (A 319 Airbus) operating for and/or on behalf of the

Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic, Pribinova No 2, Bratis Lava 81272, Slovakia,
has landed at SSR International Airport and was expected to leave Mauritius in the

afternoon of 26 April 2022. Applicant was also informed that the aircraft has 11

persons on board, including Police Officers and Senior Officials from the Slovak

Republic. Applicant also had information that arrangements had been made for him

to taken Sir Seewoosagur International Airport and onwards to the Slovak Republic.

31. Applicant, therefore, had very strong apprehension and fear that Respondent No 2

with the support and collaboration of police officers from the Central Criminal
Investigation Division of the Mauritian Police Force together with police officers and

senior officials from the Slovak Republic will proceed to deport and/or extradite

and/or remove him the jurisdiction from Mauritius without following the procedures

laid down in the Deportation Act and even before the extradition hearing is held and

determined by the Court in Mauritius (cause No 1670/2022).

32. Applicant wishes to state that since his affidavit in reply dated 22 April 2022 was filed

on 20 April 2022, Applicant and I have noticed that Applicant was being constantly

watched and his movements were being secretly monitored by the Mauritian Police,

despite the fact that Applicant was being very compliant with his bail conditions.

There were Police officers dressed in civilian clothes who have been roaming around

our place of abode day and night. In the night of 25 April 2022, Applicant noticed the
presence of a Black Toyota Vitz Car bearing Registration No 2675 ZY 10 at around 10

pm with two individuals watching over the movements around our place of abode.

8
33. As at the morning of 26 April 2022, no deportation notice or any other notice was

served upon the Applicant by Respondents No 1 and 2.

34. Given the grave risk, serious apprehension and fear that he could be illegally and

unlawfully deported without following the procedures laid down in the Deportation

Act and/or be extradited to Slovakia on the said Slovak Republic aircraft (A 319 Airbus)

and/or be removed from the jurisdiction of Mauritius in disregard to the laws of

Mauritius even prior to the conclusion of the proceedings under the Extradition Act

which were pending before the District Court of Port Louis (Cause No 1670/2022),

Applicant applied for injunctive relief before the Honourable Judge in Chambers.

35. The application for injunctive relief, which was directed against the State of Mauritius,

the Respondents Nos 1 and 2, in the presence of the Respondent No 4 and the Co-

Respondent No 1, was lodged before the Honourable Judge in Chambers at the office

of the Judge's Secretaries Office situate on the first floor of the New Supreme Court

Building, Edith Cavell Street, Port Louis, at around 10:40 a.m.

A copy of the Proecipe dated 26 April 2022, together with Applicant's Affidavit in

support thereof (annexes thereto have been omitted in order to avoid unnecessary

repletion of documents), is annexed and marked ANNEX 11.

36. Applicant accompanied his team of lawyers to the New Supreme Court Building in

order to lodge the application.

37. Once the application was lodged, Applicant went in a meeting room on the third floor

of the New Supreme Court Building in order to give further instructions to his lawyers,

while the outcome of the application was being awaited. I, the deponent, aver that I

was also present thereat.

38. At around 13 00 hrs on 26 April 2022, the Applicant received a true and certified copy

of a Judge's Order issued by Honourable M I Maghooa, Judge sitting in Chambers,

whereby an interim injunction was ordered in the following terms -

9
 "... an Interim Order in the nature of an injunction be issued against the
respondents [the State of Mauritius and the Respondents Nos 1 and 2 in the
present matter] and the co-respondents [the Respondent No 4 and the Co-

Respondent No 1 in the present matter], their prepose or agent or proxy or

persons acting on their behalves, prohibiting and restraining them from -

(i) deporting the applicant from Mauritius without complying with the
provisions of the Deportation Act; and
(ii) extraditing the applicant and/or removing him from Mauritius prior
to the conclusion of the Extradition Hearing (cause no. 1670/2022)
before the District Court of Port Louis."

A copy of the Judge's Order dated 26 April 2022 is annexed and marked ANNEX 12.

39. According to the Judge's Order dated 26 April 2022, the interim order was to remain

in force until the returnable date which was set to 28 April 2022.

40. As soon as the Judge's Order was received, Applicant's legal team immediately

proceeded to the Registry of the Supreme Court situate on the first floor of the New

Supreme Court Building for the Rule to be issued by virtue of the said Judge's Order

made on 26 April 2022.

41. Applicant and I, the deponent, accompanied the team of lawyers to the first floor and

we were all awaiting for the Rule to be issued.

42. While the Rule was being prepared at the Registry of the Supreme Court, a number of

Police Officers, not wearing the prescribed police uniform, came on the first floor of

the New Supreme Court Building.

43. Applicant's lawyer approached them and informed them that an interim injunction

has been issued in the terms set out therein.

10
44. The Police Officers read the Judge's Order and took pictures of it. Applicant believes

that the pictures were sent to their superiors. The Police Officers were constantly on

their mobile telephone.

45. Applicant avers that the Police Officers also stated to my lawyer that they were in

touch with the Office of the Respondent No 1 and also to the Office of the Co-

Respondent No 1.

46. Applicant avers that his lawyers had also explained to the Police Officers that the Rule
was being awaited.

47. The Rule was taxed, paid and issued for at approximately 1:43 p.m.

A copy of the Rule (WI - 5997 - SN 627/2022} dated 26 April 2022 is annexed and

marked ANNEX 13.

48. Applicant's lawyers brought it to the attention of the officers involved. Applicant was
then given to understand by the Police Officers because the Rule was not yet served

on the Respondent No 2, he would have to go the Line Barracks for an entry and then

he would be allowed to leave.

49. Applicant avers that once outside of the New Supreme Court Building, the attitude of
the Police Officers changed drastically and they came back on the arrangement for the

Applicant to be taken to the Line Barracks in his lawyer's car. Applicant also noticed
more officers joining the operation. Applicant verily believes that they were Police

Officers and officers working under the command and directions of the Respondent

No 2.

50. Applicant avers that instead he was forced to enter a Police vehicle which was parked

opposite the New Supreme Court Building, along Edith Cavell Street, Port Louis.

Applicant's lawyer accompanied him in the said vehicle.

11
51. Applicant avers that the Police van then drove instead to the underground parking of

the Passport and Immigration Office situate at Sterling House, Lislet Geoffroy Street,

Port Louis, instead of Line Barracks.

52. Applicant avers that upon arriving in the said underground parking, his lawyer and

himself got out of the Police vehicle. The Police Officers and the Officers of the

Respondent No 2 became verbally aggressive.

53. Applicant avers that at that point in time, the Police Officers and the Officers of

Respondent No 2 informed the Applicant and his lawyer that, notwithstanding the

Judge's Order, they had received clear instructions to "deport" the Applicant.

54. Applicant avers that when he stated to a Police Officer dressed in a dark checked

trousers and a long sleeves white shirt that the Supreme Court had decided in his

favour, the Police Officer in question replied: "/ can fuck the Supreme Court! Get in

the car!"

55. Applicant avers that the same Police Officer in question then punched him on his

chest. Thereafter, he, together with other Police Officers, got hold of Applicant

aggressively and pushed the latter in the Police vehicle again. This time, leaving

Applicant's lawyer behind, the Police officers and/or the officers of the Respondent

No 2 drove at full speed and rushing the Applicant to Sir Seewoosagar Ramgoolam

International Airport. The time was then approximately 14:05.

56. The Rule together with all the relevant proceedings were served on the Respondents

Nos 1, 2 and 4 on the very same day as follows:

A. Service on the Respondent No 2 was effected on 26 April 2022 at 14 15 hrs, by

leaving true and certified copies of the relevant documents with PC Fowdar found

at the Passport and Immigration Office situate at Sterling House Lislet Geoffroy

Street, Port Louis.

12
B. Service on the State of Mauritius and on the Co-Respondent No 1 was effected on

26 April 2022 by leaving true and certified copies of the relevant documents with

Mrs Sawoburthia, Legal Assistant, found at the Registry of the Office of the

Honourable Attorney General situate at Renganaden Seeneevassen Building, Port

Louis.

C. Service on the Respondent No 1 was effected on 26 April 2022 at 1450 hrs by

leaving true and certified copies of the relevant documents with Mr D K Rughoo,

Assistant Permanent Secretary found at the Prime Minister's Office situate at

Treasury Building, Port Louis.

A copy of the Rule, together with the return of service on the Respondents Nos

land 2 and on the State of Mauritius, is annexed and marked ANNEX 14.

D. Applicant is informed by the Usher who effected service that first served on the

Respondent No 2 at 1415hrs, then on the Co-Respondent No 1 and lastly on the

Respondent No 1 at 1450 hrs. Therefore, logically, service on the State of

Mauritius and the Co-Respondent No 1 was effected between 1415 hrs and 1450

hrs.

E. Service on the Respondent No 4 was effected by another registered usher on 26

April 2022 at 1520 hrs by leaving true and certified copies of the relevant
documents with Mr Zulfikar Lalloo, Aviation Security Officer at SSR International

Airport. It is apposite to note the following observations made by the usher in the

usher's return of service on the Respondent No 4:

"Before the above exercise, I was informed by one of the employees posted at
the office of the Director of Civil Aviation that the Director is busy in a meeting
and that I will have to wait for the meeting to be over. I therefore stated to the
said gentleman that in the absence of the Director of the Civil Aviation any body
posted in his office can accept service on his behalf.

13
 It was only then that Mr Zulfikar La/loo accepted service as above."

A copy of the Rule, together with the return of service on the Respondent No 4 is

annexed and marked ANNEX 15.

57. Applicant avers that the officers in the van did not talk to him on the way to the

airport; they were all talking in creole on their mobile telephone, while the van was

being driven at a very high speed of around 140 km/hr throughout the motorway to

the airport.

58. Applicant avers, that arriving at the airport, the police van drove straight to the runway

where the Slovak aircraft was stationed.

59. Applicant avers that one officer who was not in the van then approached the Applicant

to give him a letter ordering him to sign it. As Applicant stated to the officer that he

did not have his glasses on, he could not read it. The officer replied to the Applicant :

"it does not matter, no need to sign. Do you want the letter or not?"

60. Applicant avers that he kept the letter on him. Then a group of seven officers or more

took the Applicant out of the van and brought him to the aircraft and handed him over

to the Slovak officials.

61. Applicant avers that the plane took off at about 1551 hrs, with him on board and
landed in Slovakia the next morning via Athens.

62. Applicant avers that the letter that was handed over to him are in fact two documents:

A. One was a Notice under section 6(6) of the Immigration Act signed by the

Respondent No 1 and dated 15 April 2022, depriving the Applicant of his status

of resident with immediate effect. Applicant was further informed that he has

failed to disclose that he was convicted of the offence of inflicting bodily harm
in Slovakia on 13 December 1989.

14
 A copy of the Notice dated 15 April 2022 is annexed and marked ANNEX 16.

B. The other document was a letter dated 26 April 2022 and signed for the

Respondent No 2 informing the Applicant that the Respondent No 1 has, in his

absolute discretion, as provided for in section 6(1) of the Immigration Act has

deprived the Applicant of his status of resident with immediate effect by notice

dated 15 April 2022. It further informed the Applicant that pursuant to section

6 (5) of the Immigration Act, the Applicant, who has been deprived of his status

as resident, is deemed to be a prohibited immigrant.

A copy of the letter dated 26 April 2022 is annexed and marked ANNEX 17.

63. On 28 April 2022, the injunction case (Serial No 627/2022) was called before the

Honourable Judge in Chambers. There was no longer a live issue as Applicant had

already been removed from Mauritius. After hearing statements made by Counsel for

the Applicant and Counsel for the State of Mauritius, who was also Counsel for the

Respondents Nos 1, 2 and 4 abovenamed, the Honourable Judge sitting in Chambers

referred to matter to the Co-Respondent No 2 for any action he deems appropriate.

A copy of the minutes of proceedings of 28 April 2022 in the case bearing Serial No

627/2022 is annexed and marked ANNEX18.

A copy of the full transcript of proceedings of 28 April 2022 in the case bearing Serial

No 627/2022 is annexed and marked ANNEX 19.

A copy of the Judge's Order dated 28 April 2022 in the case bearing Serial No

627 /2022 is annexed and marked ANNEX 20.

64. On 30 April 2022, the Office of the Respondent No 1 issued a communique wherein it

is inter alia stated that -

A. The "removal" of the Applicant on 26 April 2022 was lawful.

15
 B. The Applicant was armed and dangerous.

C. Applicant was a fugitive.

D. The removal from Mauritius was effected by the Slovakian Authorities after

applicant was handed over by the Mauritius Police.

E. There was no Supreme Court Order against the Police.

F. The Order of the Supreme Court could not have been complied with.

A copy of the communique of the Office of the Respondent No 1 is annexed and

marked ANNEX 21.

65. Applicant denies that the contents of the communique of the Office of the Respondent

No 1 mentioned at paragraph 64 above inasmuch as they are false, inaccurate and

misleading.

66. On 06 May 2022, the Office of the Co-Respondent No 2 issued a communique whereby

it is inter alia stated that the Co-Respondent No 2 "... has decided, in the exercise of

his discretionary powers under section 64 of the District and Intermediate Court
(Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, to require the Honourable Magistrate of the District Court
of Port Louis to proceed to inquiry and examination into any offence relating to the
circumstances whereby one Peter Uricek [the Applicant in the present matter], a
Slovak National, was 'removed' from the Mauritian Territory."

A copy of the communique of the Co-respondent No 2 is annexed and marked

ANNEX 22.

67. Applicant is informed that Co-Respondent No 1 was summoned to depute the relevant

officers involved in the matter of Peter URICEK (the Applicant) to appear before the

District Court of Port Louis South on 12 May 2022 at 13:00 to give evidence for the

purposes of the inquiry initiated by the Co-Respondent No 2.

68. Applicant is also informed that on 11 May 2022, Co-Respondent No 1 has lodged an

application for leave to apply for a judicial review of the decision making process and

16
 decision of the Co-Respondent No 2 in relation to the initiation of the inquiry. Further,

the Co-Respondent No 1 has on 11 May 2022 also obtained an order for the stay of

proceedings of the inquiry which was due to start before the District Court of Port

Louis South on 12 May 2012, pending the application for leave to apply for Judicial

Review (SCR 123127 - SA/131/22).

69. Applicant is given to understand that the Co-Respondent No 2 is resisting the

application for leave to apply for Judicial Review lodged by the Co-Respondent No 1.

70. On 11 May 2022, at 11:00 a.m., the extradition hearing (Cause No 1670/2022) was

called before the District Court of Port Louis South. Applicant having already been

removed from Mauritius, Counsel for the Co-Respondent No 1 moved to withdraw the

extradition case. After hearing remarks made by Applicant's Counsel, his motion was

acceded to. However, the Honourable Magistrate referred the matter to the Co-

Respondent No 2 for any action he may deem fit in view of the nature of the case and

the statements on record.

A copy of the Ruling dated 11 may 2022 (cause No. 1670/2022} is annexed and

marked ANNEX 23.

71. Applicant is informed that Co-Respondent No 2 has initiated proceedings for contempt

of Court against Respondent Nos 2 and 4 before the Supreme Court of Mauritius.

72. Applicant avers that (a) the decision-making process and decision of the Respondent
No 1 to deprive the Applicant of his status of resident with immediate effect by way

of Notice dated 15 April 2022 which was handed over to the Applicant on 26 April
2022, thereby making the Applicant a prohibited immigrant; and (b) the decision-
making process and decision of Respondents to remove Applicant and/or to cause his

removal from the jurisdiction of Mauritius by handing him over to the Slovak

Authorities at SSR International Airport are "ultra vlres", unreasonable in the

17
Wednesbury sense, illegal, tainted by procedural impropriety, an error of law, unfair

and in breach of the rules of natural justice, inasmuch as -

A. Mauritius being a sovereign State, the Slovak Authorities had no jurisdiction to

remove Applicant from the territory of Mauritius. Further, there is no law in

Mauritius allowing a foreign State to come to Mauritius and remove one of her
citizens for whatever reason. Applicant is advised that even though he was a

foreigner on Mauritian territory, he was entitled to the protection of the laws of

Mauritius.

B. Applicant's forcible removal from the jurisdiction of Mauritius by the Respondents

is in defiance of the interim order issued at Chambers by Honourable M I Maghoa,

Judge, which expressly and explicitly prohibits: (i) Applicant's deportation from
Mauritius without complying with the provisions of the Deportation Act; and (ii)

Applicant's extradition and/or removal from Mauritius prior to the conclusion of

the Extradition Hearing (cause no. 1670/2022) before the District Court of Port

Louis.

C. In fact, Applicant's removal from the jurisdiction of Mauritius in the circumstances

described above amounts to a disguised extradition designed to circumvent the

extradition hearing and the provisions of the Deportation Act. In doing so, the

Respondents and their officers acting under their commands and directions have
flouted of the interim order issued at Chambers by Honourable M I Maghoa, Judge.

D. Respondent No 1 has made an abusive and unlawful use of his "absolute

discretion" under sections 6(1) and 9A(8) of the Immigration Act and removed him

and/or caused his removal from the jurisdiction of Mauritius without complying

with the provisions of the Deportation Act and without awaiting for the conclusion

of the extradition hearing, despite the interim injunction being issued and served.

In doing so, Respondent No 1 has deprived Applicant of the possibility and

opportunity to make representations and challenge his removal before the

competent Court in Mauritius. Further, the Applicant was deprived of the

18
 extradition hearing which was scheduled to 11 May 2022and thus, Respondents

have deprived the Applicant of the protection of the laws of Mauritius.

E. Respondent No 1 had no power to remove the Applicant from Mauritius by simply

invoking sections 6(1) and 9A(8) of the Immigration Act. The Respondent No 1

ought to have followed the procedures laid down in the Deportation Act.

Respondent no 1 ought to have awaited for the outcome of the extradition hearing

before extraditing and/or removing the Applicant from the jurisdiction of

Mauritius. The more so, the Respondents and all the officers acting under their

commands and directions or on their behalves should have complied with the

interim injunction issued.

F. Applicant was never served with the Notice depriving him of resident by post, as

required by law. The letter was handed over to him just a few minutes before he

was removed forcibly from Mauritius and after Applicant was denied access to his

lawyers. Applicant was therefore denied the opportunity to challenge the decision

of the Respondent No 1 before a Court of law while he was still on Mauritian soil.

In his communique dated 30 April 2022 (Annex 21 above), Respondent No 1 stated

that a notice dated 15 April 2022 was served by post on 26 April 2022, date on

which the Applicant was removed from Mauritius.

G. The Notice dated 15 April 2022 further stated that Applicant had failed to disclose

that he was convicted of the offence of inflicting bodily harm in Slovakia on 13

December 1989. Applicant avers that according to the document dated 03

February 2022 which was issued by the Criminal Record Register of the General
Public Prosecution Office of the Slovak Republic, together with a translated version

duly translated on 16 February 2022 by an appointed official translator (ANNEX

24), Applicant has no previous conviction in the Republic of Slovakia.

19
H. The decision of the Respondent to deprive the Applicant of his status of resident

is dated 15 April 2022, that is prior to Applicant's conviction and sentence in

absentia in Slovakia.

I. Applicant was never communicated with the outcome of his application for the

renewal of his Occupation Permit (reference No EDB_OP_2022_958). Further,

Applicant was denied the hearing relating to the objection raised by the

Respondent No 1 after Applicant and I, the deponent, applied to get married in

Mauritius.

J. Applicant's arrest by the officers under the command and direction of

Respondents Nos 2 and 5 was unlawful inasmuch as the Applicant was never

cautioned and was never informed of his Constitutional rights. He was denied

access to his lawyer. By law, after an arrest, one must be taken brought under

judicial control. In the premises, Applicant was taken away from the judicial

control of the District Court of Port Louis South whereby his extradition hearing

was due, while he was on bail. Applicant avers that he was in fact abducted.

K. It is stated in the communique of the Respondent No 1 dated 28 April 2022 that

Applicant was reported armed and dangerous and a fugitive. Yet, the Slovak

Republic had requested Applicant's extradition since 21 May 2020. The relevant

authorities of Mauritius knew or ought to have known Applicant's whereabouts

and address, but the Co-Respondent No 1 took more 1 Yi years to initiate

proceedings for Applicant's extradition under the Extradition Act. Applicant denies

being armed and dangerous. Applicant avers that he also has a clean criminal

record in Mauritius as evidenced by the annexed Certificate of Character marked

ANNEX 25.

L. Further, the existence of an Interpol Red Notice was unknown to the Applicant
until same came out when the enquiry officer of the Respondent No 3 was

deponing in Court during the bail hearing in connection with the extradition

proceedings. It was only then that Applicant became aware that he was subject to

20
 an Interpol Red Notice since 26 August 2019. There was therefore no valid reason

for the Respondents to remove Applicant from the jurisdiction of Mauritius in the

haste and in the circumstances that they did, in spite of the interim injunction

issued.

M. Respondents Nos 1 to 3 should have or ought to have stopped and/or cause the

all operations relating to Applicant's removal from the jurisdiction of Mauritius to

stop, upon taking actual notice of the interim injunction. Applicant avers that all
the officers who were involved in the operation which caused Applicant's removal

from Mauritius had actual notice of the Rule issuing the interim injunction by

virtue of the Judge's Order of 26 April 2022. They chose not to comply with it. It

is therefore absurd for the Respondent No 1 to state in the said communique

dated 30 April 2022 (Annex 21, above) that the Order of the Supreme Court could
not be complied with.

N. The Respondents were driven by improper motives to remove the Applicant from

the jurisdiction of Mauritius with a view to circumvent judicial proceedings and the
due process of the law, in spite of the interim injunction.

o. The Respondent No 4 should not have allowed the Slovak aircraft to take off with

the Applicant on board, upon being served with the Rule issuing the interim order

made by virtue of a Judge's Order on 26 April 2022.

73. Applicant avers that he has locus stondi to enter the present application and that he
has an arguable case.

74. Applicant avers that the aforesaid decisions of the Respondents are vitiated and

warrant the intervention of the court in the exercise of its inherent and supervisory

jurisdiction.

75. Applicant is praying that he be excused for the delay in bringing the present

application for leave to apply for a judicial review and is also moving for an order

21
extending the delay for making the present application up to the date of lodging of

the present application and authorising the Applicant to proceed with the present

application for the following reasons -

A. Applicant was suddenly, abruptly and forcibly removed from the jurisdiction of

Mauritius on 26 April 2022, without his passport and without his personal

belongings.

B. The decision of the Respondent No 1 dated 15 April 2022 was only

communicated a few minutes before he was handed over to the Slovak

Authorities on 26 April 2022.

C. Applicant had no agent in proxy in Mauritius.

D. It was only when Applicant's daughter came to Mauritius on 29 June 2022 for

a few days that the issue of Power of Attorney was finally resolved. Copies of

here-tickets are annexed and marked ANNEX 26 and ANNEX 27.

E. After Applicant's daughter left Mauritius on 11 July 2022, arrangements had to

be made for a Notary to attend prison for Applicant to sign the Power of

Attorney. Thereafter the signed Power of Attorney was sent for apostille under

the Hague Convention.

F. The Power of Attorney was signed by the Applicant in prison in Slovakia on 15

July 2022. It was posted via courier (OHL) on 20 July 2022 (as evidenced by

ANNEX 28) and reached Mauritius on Saturday 23 July 2022. It was deposited

before a Notary in Mauritius on Monday 25 July 2022, registered on the same

day and deposited at the Registry of the Supreme Court later.

G. No prejudice will be caused to the Respondents and Co-Respondents if

Applicant is allowed to proceed will the present Applicant.

22
 H. Applicant has not been guilty of laches and cannot be taxed for not acting

promptly in the circumstances.

I. Once the issue of Power of Attorney was resolved, Applicant, through his

agents and proxies, has acted expeditiously, reasonably and sensibly.

J. There is therefore good reason to extend the delay.

76. Applicant therefore prays from this Honourable Court for an Order-

(1) excusing the Applicant for the delay in bringing the present application for leave

to apply for a judicial review;

(2) extending the delay for making the present application up to the date of lodging

and authorising the Applicant to proceed with this application for leave to apply

for judicial review;

(3) granting the Applicant leave to apply for a judicial review of (a) the .declsion-

making process and decision of the Respondent No 1 to deprive the Applicant of

his status of resident by way of Notice dated 15 April 2022 which was handed over

to the Applicant on 26 April 2022, thereby making the Applicant a prohibited

immigrant; and (b) the decision-making process and decision of Respondents to

remove Applicant and/or to cause his removal from the jurisdiction of Mauritius

by handing him over to the Slovak Authorities at SSR International Airport for being
"ultra vires", unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense, illegal, tainted by procedural

impropriety, an error of law, unfair and in breach of the rules of natural justice,
and for the issue of -

(a) an Order directing the Respondents and Co-Respondents to bring up

their record in respect of the aforesaid decision making process and

decisions to the Supreme Court of Mauritius;

(b) a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of Respondent No 1 to deprive

the Applicant of his status of resident with immediate effect by way of

23
 Notice dated 15 April 2022 which was handed over to the Applicant on

26 April 2022, thereby making the Applicant a prohibited immigrant;

(c) a declaration that the said Notice dated 15 April 2022 is null and void

ab initio;

(d) a declaration that Applicant's removal from the jurisdiction of

Mauritius by handing him over to the Slovak Authorities at SSR

International Airport was illegal and unlawful; and

(e) any other order that this Honourable Court deems fit to make in the
interest of justice. WITH COSTS

77. Applicant prays accordingly.

Sworn by the abovenamed deponent

at Chambers, New Court House Port Louis,

thi��f July 2022

p
Drawn up by me

M.SOOzy
Attorney-at-Law

Attorney for Deponent,

-6 --·�-- - ·--- - I
-·-. -·------
R4.J JHUHOO
ief Court Of!ic:r/
Cou.rf 1"l:rnager
]

--- . .':."=.::\.::::::::;:"•I

instructing Mr Y VARMA and Ms 8 GOBIN,

both of Counsel

I certify that this affidavit will form part of a case before the Supreme Court of Mauritius

M. SOOBHUG

Attorney-at -Law

24