The report of the Presidential Commission, chaired by Lord Mackay, to examine and report upon the structure and operation of the judicial system and legal profession of Mauritius, was made public in 1997.

As regards the Supreme Court, the Commission recommended, inter alia, the following at Chapter 3:

• ……it would be right to divide the Supreme Court into two sections, a Court of Appeal Section and High Court Section, in order that the judges exercising the appeal jurisdiction should be freed from detailed consideration of cases at first instance so that they may concentrate on the development of the law and have appropriate opportunity to consider the way that other jurisdictions have developed their law to deal with problems similar to those which arise in Mauritius;
• ……it would be right to set up a Court of Appeal Section of the Supreme Court to which appeals from every level of court in Mauritius, the High Court Section of the Supreme Court, the Intermediate Court and the District Court should be taken. This Court of Appeal Section should also be the Court to which appeals from the Industrial Court or any tribunal in respect of which an appeal lies should be taken;
• …..recommend that the new Court of Appeal Section should consist of the Chief Justice, who will continue to be the Head of the Judiciary, the President of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal Section of that Court. The other judges should be the Senior Puisne Judge and the three most senior judges of the present Supreme Court.

At some point, resistance was shown against the reform on the basis of the argument that  judges will lose their acquired right to hear appeals. This does not, in any way, hold water as the Commission recommended at paragraph 3.5 of the report: …….. any judge or more might be called upon from time to time, at the discretion of the Chief  Justice, to serve on an appeal, unlike the Chief Justice himself and the Senior Puisne Judge who are expressly called to sit on the Court of Civil Appeal and the Court of Criminal Appeal. The other judges individually are not nominated under the present law as having any specific appellate function and therefore we consider that there is no valid objection that can be offered to making this separation between the appellate and the first instance function, which we consider is now wise to make, in the interest of the development of the law of Mauritius and the reputation of its Courts.

The new Supreme Court building is a reality. It was recommended at paragraph 3.4 of the report: …… the perception of the Court of Appeal Section as a distinct court would be enhanced if it sat in a distinct building from other courts. The old Supreme Court building can be used to house the Court of Appeal Section and the new, the High Court section.

In 2010, two draft Bills namely the Constitution (Amendment) Bill and the Judicial and Legal Provision Bill, intended to implement the above recommendations, were circulated for public consultation. Working sessions were held with the judiciary and recommendations were received from the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Chamber of Notaries, the Law Reform Commission and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In 2013, both Bills were ready to be introduced in the National Assembly and the Judicial and Legal Provisions Bill had even received Cabinet approval. On 23^rd June 2021, pursuant to section 3(2)(b) & (c) of the Mauritius Bar Association Act, the Bar Council made representations to Government with a view to set up a Court of Appeal separate from the Supreme Court. On 29^th July, 2021, Government responded to inform the Council that the suggestion is being considered.

The setting up of a separate Court of Appeal will, undoubtedly, receive support from most parties across the political spectrum and remain a landmark in making our democracy more vibrant.

We need to draw inspiration from the procedure adopted in other democracies. In the United Kingdom (UK) , Queen’s Counsel is appointed by the Queen, on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, who is, in turn, advised by an Independent Selection Panel composed of nine members, chaired by a lay member. The Independent Selection Panel receives and scrutinizes each application and makes recommendations.  Application to become QC is an extensive process and candidates must satisfy a demanding five-staged competency framework including: understanding and using the law, written and oral advocacy, working with others, diversity and integrity. Applications usually provide evidence from several cases they have worked on and references and confidential assessments from judges, fellow advocates, and professional clients are considered before successful candidates are invited for an interview. During the interview, applicants sit before a selection panel of ten persons, comprising of barristers, solicitors, a retired judge and non-lawyers. On the other hand, lawyers and legal academics who have made a major contribution to the law of England and Wales outside practice in the courts can be appointed  QC Honoris Causa on the sole recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.

Until recently India, like Mauritius used to have an arbitrary system of appointment of SCs.  It was only after the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary-General &Ors, a public interest litigation that positive steps were taken to formulate new guidelines for the designation of senior advocates. According to Jaising’s petition, “there is no transparency in the procedure, no criteria laid down for determining excellence in advocacy and no rational nexus between the persons designated and their excellence or no rational reason for rejection of persons of eminence and ability”. Jaising went further in describing the process as a “beauty contest”, because since 2014 judges’ popular vote decided who to designate as senior advocates rather than “an informed discussion among judges on the merits of each candidate” or the prior convention of designating anyone who applied and who had at least five judges’ approval. The court in the case of Jaising considered Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act 1961 and Rule 2(a) Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, 1966  while formulating guidelines.  As a result, Supreme Court Guidelines to Regulate Conferment of Designation of Senior Advocates, 2018, were formulated.  It provided for the setting up of a permanent committee for that purpose, known as the “Committee for Designation of Senior Lawyers”. The Committee comprises of the Chief Justice of India as its Chairperson, along with two senior-most Supreme Court Judges, the Attorney General for India, and a member of the Bar as nominated by the Chairperson and other members. All the applications for the designation of senior advocates are normally submitted to the Secretariat which collects data related to the reputation of the applicant, his work, knowledge, and the number of cases in which the advocate appeared in the past five years. This data is forwarded to the Committee which will decide whether the concerned advocate can be designated as senior or not.

In New Zealand, appointments to Queen’s Counsel are made by the Governor-General, by Letters Patent, under the Royal Prerogative. Pursuant to Regulation 04 of the Queen’s Counsel Regulations 2012 appointments are made on the recommendation of the Attorney-General and with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of New Zealand. Counsel seeking appointment as Queen’s Counsel should write to the Solicitor-General and the letter of application must be accompanied by a completed application form. The form provided reflects the requirements of the Regulations which are: excellence, knowledge of the law, commitment to improving access to justice, oral and/or written advocacy, independence, integrity and honesty and leadership.  On behalf of the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General consults the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association, as required by regulation 8 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Queen’s Counsel) Regulations 2012, and convey their views to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General will consult with the Chief Justice on the candidates whose appointment is to be recommended to the Governor-General. Nothing in the Regulations or  Guidelines removes the Governor-General’s discretion to appoint as Queen’s Counsel,  from time to time, other lawyers in recognition for their extraordinary contributions to the field of law. Appointments can be drawn from members of the legal profession practising in other spheres including academia and public service.

In most respected democracies throughout the world, there is a process which has been put in place for such appointments unlike Mauritius, where it is fundamentally a tap on the shoulder system . It is clear that the current way in which SCs and SAs are appointed should be thoroughly reviewed. The Law Practitioners Act needs to be amended to that effect after consultation with, inter alia, the Judiciary, the Mauritius Bar Association and the Law Society. However, we should be cautious not to end up with a scenario where the more things change, the more they remain the same.

The main psychoactive ingredient present in the cannabis plant is Delta-9-Tetradrocannabinol (THC). Other main naturally occurring cannabinoids with similar chemical structures to THC are cannabinol (CBN) and cannabidiol (CBD). The 2018 report of the 40th meeting of the World Health Organization Expert Committee on Drug Dependence stated that there are no reported cases of abuse or dependence relating to use of pure CBD. It further stated that no public health problems have been associated with CBD use and that in clinical trials; pure CBD product has demonstrated effectiveness for treating some forms of epilepsy. Nevertheless, according to the same report when used acutely cannabis causes dizziness and impairment of motor control and cognitive function. It further states that regular cannabis use is associated with increased risk of mental health disorders but most of the adverse effects associated with cannabis result from chronic use. Despite its reputation as being non addictive, another established risk factor for the use of recreational cannabis is dependence.

For a longtime, CBD and THC have been prescribed to treat nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy, spasms, muscle stiffness and chronic pain. CBD can also treat glaucoma and epilepsy. In the United States, epidiolex i.e purified natural CBD proved to treat two atypical forms of childhood epilepsy. Medical use of cannabis was legalized in the United Kingdom on 01 November, 2018. The law change came after the Home Secretary listened to concerns from parents of children with conditions such as severe epilepsy namely after the cases of two epileptic children who benefitted from using cannabis brought increased public attention to the issue. The children (Billy Caldwell, 12 and Alfie Dingley, 6) both experienced significant improvement in their conditions after they began using cannabis.

The South African case of Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development & Ors v Prince        (2018) ZACC 30 held that section 4(b) of its Drugs Trafficking Act 1992 which made it a criminal offence for an adult to have in his possession cannabis in private for his personal consumption was inconsistent with the right to privacy as entrenched in section 14 of its Constitution. In Ravin v State of Alaska, it was held that citizens of the State of Alaska have a basic right to privacy in their homes under Alaska’s Constitution. This right to privacy would encompass the possession and ingestion of substances such as marijuana in a purely personal, non-commercial context in the home unless the State can meet its substantial burden and show that proscription of possession of marijuana in the home is supportable by achievement of a legitimate state interest.

Legal access to dried cannabis was first allowed in Canada in 1999 for medical and scientific purposes and in public interest. In a 2000 Ontario Court of Appeal decision, the right of an individual to possess cannabis for medical purposes was confirmed, leading the Canadian federal Government to permit approved persons to either grow cannabis themselves, have a designated person grow it for them or purchase products directly through Health Canada. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada held that restricting legal access only to dried forms of cannabis violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In response, licensed producers were allowed to produce and sell cannabis oil and fresh cannabis buds and leaves. In 2016, in response to another decision of the Federal Court of Canada, individuals who had been authorized by their healthcare practitioner to access cannabis for medical purposes could produce a limited amount of cannabis for their own medical purposes. On 17 October, 2018, Canada became the second country after Uruguay where cannabis was made legal for recreational and medicinal purposes. Persons aged 18 or older can possess up to 30 grams of dried cannabis in public. Adults are also allowed to make cannabis-infused food and drinks and each household is allowed to grow up to four cannabis plants. Canadians travelling within the country are allowed to carry up to 30 grams of cannabis.

Cannabis in India has been used since time immemorial. Attempts at criminalizing cannabis in British India were unsuccessfully made in 1838, 1871 and 1877. In Indian society, common terms for cannabis preparations include charas (resin), ganja (flower) and bhang (seeds and leaves). Bhang has been mentioned in several Indian texts and is closely associated with the Holi and Maha Shivratree festivals.  In November 2015, the Indian state of Uttarakhand legalized the cultivation of cannabis for industrial purposes. Consequently, the Patanjali Ayurved of Swami Ramdev in Haridwar is researching the benefits of cannabis and its extracts for use in ayurvedic medicine. So far more than 40 countries including Australia, United Kingdom, Spain, several states in the United States of America, Switzerland, Netherlands and Germany have legalized medical cannabis. Lesotho was the first African country to legalize the cultivation of cannabis for medicinal purposes and in December 2018, Thailand became the first South Asian country to approve medicinal cannabis.

Amid the scourge of synthetic drugs and the imminent threat it represents to society coupled with the current international trend, we cannot but accept the legalization of the use of cannabis. Undoubtedly, one will agree that the effects of cannabis are far less devastating than those of synthetic drugs which have irreversible consequences. Therefore, the decision should rather be whether to restrict the use of cannabis for medical use or allow it for both medical and recreational purposes.

After the 2014 defeat, I tried a number of times, in vain, to reason the party as to the need for discipline,  structures functioning properly and the need to present ourselves as a credible alternative. The importance of internal changes in the party is that they are a precondition for the party’s ability to change the country. It is said that one who sweats more in training bleeds less in war.  I was taken lightly, perhaps even ridiculed and told that in 2014 l’alliance lepep won by default and in 2019 the Labour Party will, in turn, win by default. I was even denied a ticket in 2019 because I dared to tell Ramgoolam earlier this year that he can stand as candidate, remain leader of the party and of an eventual alliance but should not present himself as the prime ministerial candidate. Had he agreed, the election results would have been different today.  The writing has been on the wall since a longtime but some people in the Labour Party interpreted it in the way that suited them. Mahatma Gandhi once said: Blindness in a leader is unpardonable.

After Labour Party’s defeat in 2000, Ramgoolam rightly agreed to rebuild the party. A new constitution was adopted and structures such as Constituency Labour Party, local committees around each polling station, Young Labour, Women’s League, National Policy Forum and Policy Commissions were set up. The party became full of activities and became a party of ideas. As per the constitution the polit-bureau met every fortnight, the central executive committee and each constituency labour party on a monthly basis. From 2000 to 2005, the party functioned perfectly well resulting in a resounding victory in 2005 against the MSM/MMM alliance.

Once in power, the above were completely neglected and ignored to such an extent that successive secretary generals were not even favoured with a copy of the party’s constitution for implementation. I am among the very few having a copy of same as I authored the party’s new constitution in 2001 except for clause 22 which was done by Kailash Purryag and who, instead, presented same at the Labour Party Conference. By 2010, the party was already disorganized but was somewhat rescued by the MSM. By 2014, the party had stopped functioning completely with meetings of the polit-bureau and central executive committee held at the whims and caprices of the leader who incidentally stopped believing in the Constituency Labour Party. The MMM was seen as the savior but unfortunately things did not work the way envisaged. From 2014 to 2019, the party lingered into a comatose state. Even the Annual Party Conference was not held . The recent annual party conference was convened and held contrary to the constitution and standing orders of the party.

The party headquarters is badly organized to say the least. The party has been in power for 15 years but could not build a new headquarters. Donations were undoubtedly received in 1991, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010. I wonder where the money has gone. The ruins of the former headquarters unfortunately reflect the state of the party. If the leader has really used money belonging to the Mauritius Labour Party for his personal use, this should be strongly condemned and sanctioned. I do hope if the Rs 220 million, seized by the police from his coffers, is recovered, this will be used to erect a new building for the party, purchase one office in each constituency of the island and the rest put in the bank, its interest used for the monthly expenses. A public figure has no private life. Habit is second nature.

In 2015, Rashid Beebeejaun resigned as Deputy Leader of the party and contrary to clause 18, no one was appointed to replace him. I still wonder why Shakeel Mohamed was not appointed despite being the leader of the Labour Party Parliamentary Group from 2014 to 2019. Nita Deerpalsing resigned as chairperson of the Young Labour around the same time and was replaced by Rajesh Jeetah. Can you imagine a person of 60 years of age approximately and touching old age pension leading the youth wing of the party? This ran clearly contrary to clause 17 which stipulates that Young Labour shall be open to all persons between the ages of 15 and 35. Likewise for the Women’s League, when Sheila Bappoo resigned as chairperson, no one was designated to replace her.

It is sad to say but Ramgoolam turned from a democratic leader, a gentleman in politics to an arrogant autocrat and a paranoid. Had it been for Ramgoolam only, Arvin Boolell and Shakeel Mohamed would surely have already been sacked from the party. With time,the party became centered around one person only, thus suffocating the party. This reminds me of William Cowper who said “ I am monarch of all I survey, my right there is none to dispute”. Ministers, civil servants, party officials would be sworn at, humiliated and denigrated. In 2014 during the campaign, I recall my late father telling Ramgoolam that the situation on the ground was getting out of hand and he arrogantly replied whether my father wanted to substitute himself for the leader of the Labour Party! Over the years, to many, it would seem easier to meet the queen of the United Kingdom than to get an appointment with Ramgoolam. Following the 2014 election debacle and incidents that unfolded which raised a lot of sympathy in his favour, it was expected that he would again become the leader of the 1990s and early 2000. Unfortunately, this did not and will not happen. Now, the country has to acknowledge that Navin Ramgolam will not change.

After 2014, Ramgoolam surrounded himself with a group of yes man and yes women, being at his beck and call chanting “ to meme nou le roi, to meme nou raja”. Most of them were jobless after the 2014 debacle and were clinging to him with the only hope to get a ticket, be elected and become minister. They were his worst enemies. Furthermore Ramgoolam gave a lot of importance to the opinion of few persons outside the party and seemingly they would have complete control over him often rendering useless discussions and even decisions taken at the level of the party. When the Labour Party headquarters shrunk, the power centre of the Labour Party did not move from Guy Rozemont Square to Les Salines but rather to Le Bout du Monde in Ebene where few arm chair politicians gradually took full control over the party by pulling the strings from the shadows.

The decision to designate seven or eight persons to work in each constituency was shooting ourselves in the foot. I have yet to understand the logic behind such a decision which promoted back stabbing and prospective candidates campaigning against one another instead of concentrating on our opponents. Many candidates at the 2019 elections were not even qualified to stand as clause 20 stipulated that to be eligible to stand, one has to be a member of the party for at least two years. Many of the candidates were happy to bathe in tubs filled with another persons’ sweat.

People in the party have to stand up and drastic measures need to be taken. To the Boolells and Bachoos, I will simply remind what Voltaire said: Tu dors et Rome est dans les feux. There was a time, when Ramgoolam was bigger than the party, today the party is bigger than him.. The party should realize that it can survive and win without Ramgoolam. We should recognize that he did a lot for the party but time has now come to move on. It is unfortunate but the sands of time slow for no man. In 1997 when John Major lost the general election he uttered the following words which should resonate within the Labour Party: When the curtain falls, it’s time to leave the stage. The party should forthwith change leadership and all office bearers, transform itself and present itself as a credible alternative to the present government, otherwise it runs the risk to fall into political oblivion. The Labour Party needs fresh air, fresh and vital ideas and healthy co-operation. The party should see through an all new set of lenses. Transformation isn’t an easy plot. Yet the life of the caterpillar must end for the glory of the butterfly to shine.

Homage to the Father of the Nation

On October 22, 1959 Reuters had reported Dr Ramgoolam saying that his party wanted independence for Mauritius. No political leader had until then talked of independence. Given the socio-politico context, hardly anyone could think of it as a reality. Ramgoolam himself had not publicly said anything about it in Mauritius. The first time that he spoke of independence was in the United Kingdom. That was a fall of thunder-storm on the opposition, then constituted by big sugar and financial magnates with a large population under their grip. However, most people had received the news as an oracle, signifying social justice, economic redress and political freedom.

Earlier, on March 9,  general elections had been held under a new Constitution with universal adult suffrage and 40 single-member constituencies. The Mauritius Labour Party had won the 1953 elections on this issue.  Thereafter, Guy Rozemont had presented a motion asking Lennox-Boyd, then Secretary of State, to convene a constitutional conference. This was held in 1955 and was followed by another one in 1957. It was evident that with adult suffrage the Labour Party along with its ally, the Comité d’Action Musulman, would win with an overwhelming majority. This is what happened and the Parti Mauricien of Jules Koenig foundered in ashes and the Independent Forward Bloc of Sookdeo Bissoondoyal found itself relegated in the background.

Photo –delegation London conference

The 1959 general elections were held on the issue of responsible government and Dr Ramgoolam received a clear mandate. He went to Great Britain and established contacts with the British government then run by the Conservative Party. A committed Labour leader, he won the confidence of high-profile Conservative politicians, including Secretary of State Ian Macleod, who was to play a decisive role as far as constitutional reforms were concerned.

Macleod had appreciated Ramgoolam’s humanism, political sagacity and non-communal commitment. That the Secretary of State came to Mauritius in April 1960 to assess our legitimate aspirations, indicated his appreciation for Ramgoolam. Macleod saw what needed to be seen. Most people had political will and Labour leaders had determination to forge ahead. The Secretary of State could not remain insensible. He outlined responsible government as his policy and did not think much of integration which Parti Mauricien had wished.

Two cyclones named, Alix and Carol, had badly hit Mauritius at the beginning of 1960. Much damage had been caused and a sizable assistance was needed to construct houses and finance agricultural projects. In June Ramgoolam left for London accompanied by V. Ringadoo, H.Walter and A. R. Mohamed. He made a strong plea and obtained both a loan and a grant. That was a sufficient proof that the British government had accepted him as the spokesman of its colonial administration of Mauritius. While in England, he broached the subject of independence as a prelude to the conference believed to be scheduled soon. A correspondent of the Yorkshire Evening Press  of July 14, 1960 wrote “Another one of Britain’s colonies wants independence. This time it is the Indian Ocean Island of Mauritius. The demand has not been made public yet, but I am assured by the Island’s senior elected politician, now in London, that it is coming” That was preparing the British mind to accept the idea of independence.

Ramgoolam had done good marketing. In Mauritius, the Conservatives reacted with vehemence. Le Cernéen, then the mouthpiece of the capitalists and arch opponent of Ramgoolam, which afterwards disappeared as the Dodo, took side of the Parti Mauricien which was against political freedom and the Independent Forward Bloc was against any constitutional conference, believing it would saddle Ramgoolam with greater power. In fact, a constitutional conference was due in 1961 and the leader of the Mauritius Labour Party was going to ask complete independence for 1964. In the meantime, the Governor of Mauritius had appointed Dr Ramgoolam as Minister of Finance and Leader of the House. That was an indication that the British government would be agreeable to his demands for Constitutional reforms.

The Conservatives decided to wreck the plan of Ramgoolam and created splits in the Labour Party. Dr Maurice Curé, founder of the party, turned against Ramgoolam.  M. Rault, E. David. O. Lacaze and A. Moignac , prominent Labourites, founded what they called “Parti Travalliste des Travailleurs , meaning they represented the authentic Labour Party.  A Dahal, co- founder of Comité d’Action Musulman, defected and set up the Mauritius Muslim Party. Several mushroom parties emerged like: The Muslim Democratic League, Tamil United Party, Hindu Democratic League and Union Sino-Mauricienne  were floated to oppose Ramgoolam’s proposal of independence.

Photo SSR 2

Macleod convened a conference in 1961. Labour was going to ask complete independence while Parti Mauricien wanted integration with Great Britain. The Conservatives among whom had sprung many reactionaries mounted a large scale campaign.  They spread rumours that independence would mean Hindu rule and Indianisation, lawlessness and chaos, poverty and starvation. To stop the march of liberation, they fabricated some leaders whom they flew to London, certifying the latter as the true leaders of the masses. They wanted the British government to deal with them and not Dr Ramgoolam and his colleagues. Anyway, the issue of independence was debated, but in view of protests lodged and confusion created, Macleod agreed to grant full autonomy after general elections to be held in 1963 on condition that positive results were obtained. There was wisdom in what the Secretary of State had decided.  Anyway, Ramgoolam was appointed Chief Minister with immediate effect to be followed by Premiership. Thinking people understood that independence was only a matter of time while the thoughtless ones believed it could be prevented.

The 1963 general elections were to decide the issue of responsible government, as an indication of the last phase in the independence process. Die-hards as the Conservatives were and hard cores as their followers had become, it became obvious they would move heaven and earth to prevent Ramgoolam from winning. André Masson with his paper ‘Le Mauricien’ took the lead as N.M.U had earlier done with ‘Le Cernéen’.  The latter had conceived and propagated a monstrous type of scientific communalism to divide the people into watertight compartments on the basis of caste, colour, culture and religion. He had written hundreds of articles with headings like”La politique raciale devient une nécessité”; Appel aux Musulmans, ‘Reproches ā la population Chrétiènne’, Chinois de Maurice: Refléchissez”  to inject the virus of communalism .

For his part, Dr Edgar Millien, a close colleague of Ramgoolam, influenced and briefed by Andre Masson started ‘The United Minorities Party’ to strengthen the Conservatives and alienate certain sections of the population from Ramgoolam. They did all this to disredit                  him in the eyes of British politicians , officials and government.

Any Labour’s electoral victory, was like giving more power to Ramgoolam .  The country being divided into 40 small sinple member constituencies, the Conservatives only required some more efforts to overthrow the Labour Party.  Intrigues, manoeuvres, influence-peddling and power-brokering could do the job. The Parti Mauricien roped in ‘the Tamil United Party ‘ whereas the Independent Forward Bloc :  ‘Le Parti Travalliste des Travailleurs’.  Anyway , Ramgoolam in alliance with A.R.Mohamed won the elections, inspite of the slogan “Nou pale l’independence’ echoed by the opposition that excluded the Independent Forward Bloc.

Independence is the birthright of everyone. It is a matter of great pride for the people of a country to ask or struggle for it and obtain it. Ramgoolam did not want any compatriot of his to be deprived of this right. He therefore prepared the way by forming an all-party government with Parti Mauricien and the Independent Forward Bloc.  Jules Koenig, Gaetan Duval and Sookdeo Bissoondoyal among a few others were appointed Ministers while Ramgoolam himself was Premier. Anticipating a constitutional conference to decide the question of independence, he took a delegation composed inter-alia of Gaetan Duval,  Maurice Paturau, Abdool Razack Mohamed and Sookdeo Bissoondoyal to India where he solicited support and was reported as having stated “delay in settling this question (Independence) would have the country divided and into chaos”.  Thereafter, as Leader of an all-party government, he visited several countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Arab World to explain the need for Mauritius to be independent. The impression he created was that all the parties representing the whole population of the country wanted independence. That was a great example of wisdom and diplomacy. On a certain occasion, he also said that in case of unnecessary delay, he would put Mauritius under the care of the United Nations Organisation. That determination was a show of strength necessary in a process of deconolisation.

Photo: SSR addressing national rally

Anthony Greenwood, Secretary of State, a great friend of Mauritius came in 1965 to assess the urgency of independence. The Conservatives organised big shows to impress him as to the need for integration, although Nigel Fisher and Tom Driberg, distinguished Labour  and Conservative parliamentarians, had earlier ruled it out.

Greenwood convened a conference in London. As in previous years, the Conservatives spared no efforts to mobilize public opinion in Mauritius and in Great Britain against the idea of independence. They were fighting their last battle and it was obvious they would not leave any stone unturned. Once again, they misrepresented facts and created a lot of misunderstanding. Anyway, the Secretary of State saw things very clearly and approved independence, but he made it optional on the results of  general elections. A statesman could not do otherwise in that particular context. However, it was obvious Ramgoolam would win as in the past. The Conservatives objected to the recommendations of Greenwood.  Instead, they wanted a referendum which he had rejected but which they believed would work in their favour. Their press published many articles with headings like “L’independene de Maurice ou la Deuxième conquête des Anglo-Saxons “L’independence est imposée par l’Angleterre.

The adage that a cat has seven lives was applicable to the Conservatives. The general elections to decide independence were fixed for 1967. Prior to that the British government sent                                                                         Sir Harold Banwell to propose electoral changes. One of the reforms he recommended and which was accepted, despite the Labour Party’s protest, was a disguised form of proportional representation, something similar proposed in 1955 but withdrawn in 1957 following Ramgoolam’s walk-out from  the then Legislative Council.

Banwell’s proposal had pleased the Conservative leaders and their innocent followers. That was like winning a war after losing many battles. They started celebrating their so called would be victory. As far as Ramgoolam was concerned, as in 1956, he along with his colleagues boycotted the Legislative Assembly, and asked the British government to withdraw the recommendations of Banwell. He exploded in anger and flew to London where he lodged a strong protest. Moreover, he toured several countries drawing attention to injustice done to Mauritus and mobilized support for independence.

Ramgoolam came back overwhelmed and said emphatically “Le monde veut que l’ile Maurice soit indépendente.” Following that, the British government despatched John Stonehouse, under Secretary of State, who scraped Banwell’s recommendation. General elections were thereafter held on August 7, 1967. The Independent Forward Bloc had in the meantime joined the Labour/CAM coalition and the alliance of the three parties was named The Independence Party which came out victorious. On August 22, Ramgoolam moved a motion asking the British government to take necessary steps to grant independence.

The Bristish Parliament debated and approved the issue of independence. Dr Ramgoolam chose March 12, 1968 for the British government to declare Mauritius independent. Participating in the debates and referring to him, James Griffiths, ex– Secretary of State, observed: “I think of no one more fitted in temperament and character to lead into independence a country of that size with its many problems”. In his turn, George Thompson, Commonwealth Secretary said: “I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, better known to his many friends on both sides of the House by his nickname of “Ram” for the vision and statesmanship over the years, he has shown in leading his country to the goal of independence”.

Photos (1) SSR & John Shaw Renie, (2) Mauritian flag being hoisted

12^th March 1968, the greatest date in the history of Mauritius, was approaching yet independence could be prevented even on that day.  44% of the electors had voted against it.                                                                      Certain interested parties involved large numbers of innocent people to create confusion. Disorder and violence broke out at several places. British troops flew in to restore peace. Princess Alexandra, who had gracefully accepted to represent Her Majesty the Queen, cancelled her visit at the last minute. It naturally had bad repercussions that somewhat tarnished the image of Mauritius in the world and signified that the country was perhaps not prepared for independence. Anyway, Anthony Greenwood , leader of the British delegation handed over the instrument of independence to Dr Ramgoolam with these words: “you Prime Minister, have during more than 20 years been the principal architect of the new nation that comes into being tonight”.

Photo: SSR taking the oath as Prime Minister

Dr Ramgoolam was indeed the architect of the independence of Mauritius which he obtained in the teeth of strong opposition and organized stiff conspiracy. He had steered clear and weathered the storms all through. What made all this possible was his clear vision for the country, unsurpassed love for its people and unflagging determination to forge ahead despite hindrances. He had skills to make himself understood by British politicians whose cooperation and trust he had obtained. Appointed to the Legislative Council in 1940, this great son of Mauritius had a long political career. To stop his march to independence, his detractors had wrongly accused him of being a communist,a protagonist for the annexation of Mauritius with India, an enemy of Western culture.

Saddled with full power after independence, Dr Ramgoolam did nothing to cause prejudice to any community on account of birth, language and religion. Rather, he showed unbounded appreciation for the beliefs and interests of each ethnic group. 44% of the people had voted against independence. He integrated them in the mainstream of nationhood. That was a rare example of friendship, tolerance and compromise to share whatsoever wealth was available for the building of a nation.

In his struggle for constitutional reforms leading to independence, Dr Ramgoolam had the support of fellow workers like: Guy Rozemont, Emmanuel Anquetil, Renganaden  Seeneevassen, Guy Forget, Régis Chapéron, Aunath Beejadhur, Heeralal Vaghjee, Harold Walter, Kher Jagatsingh, Satcam Boolell and Veerasamy Ringadoo  whom he all the time remembered with gratitude.

Ramgoolam was indeed great, yet he was a man of the masses. Sookdeo Bissoondoyal a long time opponent, had in his wisdom observed: Dr Ramgoolam is a well- read politician. He is at home anywhere, among the rich of any complexion and among officials however ruthless these way turn out. He knows how and what to speak in moments of crisis, and above all, he always takes good care never to get involved in any mass agitation.” Malcolm de Chazal had said “Le Dr Ramgoolam est le plus grand homme d’Ėtat que nous ayons eu”and to Gaetan Duval Ramgoolam had been the Father of the Nation.

For his part, Anerood Jugnauth later remarked: “His name is so closely and imtimately associated with the emancipation of Mauritius that it will be for ever written “in diamond” letters …… He was one of the giants of the world and could have successfully taken the destiny of any country into his hands.” This sums up what most Mauritians think of Dr Seewoosagur Ramgoolam who has gone down in history as the architect of independence and is remembered as the Father of the Nation.

September 2015.

One would recall his stand on Iran sometime back in total disregard of that of Government. On matters of foreign policy, it is established practice for the Prime Minister or for that matter the Minister of Foreign Affairs to take the lead not the Minister of Housing and Lands, as he then was. His auto proclamation as Minister for Islamic Affairs is all the more intriguing and his proximity with Saudi Arabia raises questions in relation to the financing of certain projects and foreign policy. Soodhun’s public statement on the financial support of that country for the defunct Heritage City project made big echo. It was reported in the recent past he was flown back to Mauritius from Saudi Arabia in a private jet with a number of suitcases. Funnily, the cameras at the airport were not functioning, just at that time.  Was it deliberate, a coincidence or an occasional mechanical defect? The Airports of Mauritius Limited owes an answer to the public. More recently, the Saudi prince visited the island and he organized a dinner in the presence of the Prime Minister. To the surprise of one and all, women were excluded from that prestigious event. This was an insult to say the least, in total disregard for the struggle for women emancipation and equality in Mauritius and the world at large. It is also ironical that the same Prime Minister is now talking about fair gender representation in elections.

Prior to 2014, Showkutally Soodhun stated that he had received a good job offer from the International Labour Organization. Recently it was said he had been chosen as Saudi Arabia’s roving ambassador for Africa with a monthly salary to the tune of several millions of rupees. He used the same cliché on both occasions that he was sacrificing himself for the country by refusing the job offers. The public preempted his stand on the second occasion and he was, without any surprise, not taken seriously. Before making such statements, one would wonder whether he had taken the pains to check his political profile in the mirror. Had Saudi Arabia decided to have such a roving ambassador, it would have chosen a career diplomat with several years of experience, instead of a disgraced politician having no experience in foreign policy.

To make matters worse, he publicly threatened to shoot the leader of the opposition because the latter had apparently made certain comments on Saudi Arabia in the National Assembly. The matter was reported to the police and he is now being prosecuted  before the Intermediate Court. All the more, in a meeting at his then Ministry of Housing and Lands, he allegedly mentioned that National Housing Development Company (which fell under his aegis) houses would not be allocated to creoles as they are normally thieves and prostitutes, in total disrespect of that section of the population. This statement was shameful and stinks of rampant, deep-rooted communalism. The ancestors of creoles hail from Africa and with such a statement, one would wonder how the Saudi Government chose him as its roving ambassador for that continent.  He was forced to resign on 07 November, 2017 in the face of mounting pressure from the public and the Catholic Church. On 27 August, 2018 the Director of Public Prosecutions advised prosecution against him. It is apposite to observe that on both occasions, the police did not deem it fit and proper to arrest and provisionally charge Showkutally Soodhun. A member of the opposition or any other member of the public for that instance, would definitely not have benefitted from such a privilege from the police. It would seem that his being a pivotal figure of the MSM plays in his favour. For the Commissioner of Police, it seems that people are equal but some are more equal than others.

To add insult to injury, his involvement in his son’s acquisition of a plot of state land to the extent of 1931 m2, when he was Minister of Lands raises serious legal and ethical questions. He apparently approved a minute in relation thereto on 07 May, 2015 and subsequently, his son sold the state land for the sum of Rs 48 million. It would seem for the Government of the day and the Independent Commission Against Corruption that such a practice is perfectly in order. Long live our Republic! Last but not least, Showkutally Soodhun openly criticized Mrs Fazila Jeewa Dawreeawoo, MSM Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Local Governmen, in Goodlands stating she does not represent the Muslim community and went to the extent of even criticizing the way she dresses up. Did he criticize her only because she replaced him on the Government front bench or otherwise? This remains a question of interpretation.

Soodhun’s proximity with Anerood Jugnauth has become proverbial, so much so that he publicly stated that even if the latter punishes or worse, beats him up, he will continue remaining his slave. Would that explain the leeway given to him in his excesses? By his acts and doings, Soodhun has shown to be sexist and communal. However, he is being tolerated by the MSM leadership. This reminds me of the poem “ The Solitude of Alexander Selkirk” by William Cowper- I am monarch of all I survey; My right there is none to dispute……..By having such a person as president, the MSM is perceived to condone both sexism and communalism. Someone who would have been considered to be a political headache of millennial proportions in other political parties, remains nevertheless the president of the MSM…….

To the surprise of one and all, on 16 August 2018, the Prime Minister set up a task force, out of the blue, to be chaired by the Director General of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, having as members the Director General of the Mauritius Revenue Authority, the director of the Financial Intelligence Unit, the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Solicitor General and the director of the Integrity Reporting Services Agency. First and foremost, the name ‘task force’ does not augur well.  Locally, the term ‘task force’ is used for an ad hoc committee set up for the organization of major religious festivals. Nevertheless, it was stated that the task force was to enquire on all the names mentioned in the report and render more efficient the inquiries that will be carried out. It was also mentioned that the inquiries would be carried out in all transparency without political interference. There remain many unanswered questions: What has happened to the inter ministerial committee?, What are the recommendations of that committee?, Did the committee recommend the setting up of a task force? , If so, when?, Has the inter ministerial committee, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, given way to a task force?, What is the rationale of setting up such a task force?

The report of the Commission of Inquiry already makes findings and requests the relevant authorities to inquire further. It will not, undoubtedly, be an herculean task to send the relevant parts of the report to the concerned authorities for further investigation.  The chairperson of the commission of inquiry or any other retired judge could have been entrusted with the responsibility for implementing the recommendations of the report. The chairperson and members of the task force, each head an organization that could be requested to inquire further into the findings of the commission. Assuming the setting up of the task force is justified, it would have clearly been more appropriate to have an independent chairperson who could liaise with the relevant authorities as and when required. This would have been more appropriate given the fact that the present chairperson and most members of the task force are political nominees. All the more appalling, is the Commissioner of Police who has agreed to be subservient to a political nominee. He seems to forget that he holds a constitutional post by virtue of section 71 of the Consititution which states inter alia….the Commissioner shall not, in the exercise of his responsibilities and powers with respect to the use and operational control of the force, be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.

The Government is clearly buying time and avoiding sending the report directly to the relevant authorities for further investigation. Had the report been sent directly to the police to take necessary actions in the light of the recommendations, this would inevitably have warranted  calling people close to power like Raouf Gulbul and MSM parliamentarians Teeluckdharry and Jadoo-Jaunbocus for the purposes of questioning. It goes without saying that should the police follow the normal practice, these persons would face a real risk of being arrested and provisionally charged. Such an eventuality would be disastrous to the Government. The Government is also undoubtedly comforted with the setting up of the task force, using it as a veil so as not to answer parliamentary questions on the implementation of the report.

The report recommended the dismantling of the Anti Drug and Smuggling Unit(ADSU) but the Prime Minister lost no time in stating that this measure will not be implemented. Has the decision for non implementation of that specific recommendation been studied by the inter ministerial committee or has it been a personal decision of the Prime Minister? If the Prime Minister can himself decide what parts of the report will be implemented and what parts will not, what is the use of setting up an inter ministerial committee and a task force.

Prior to the publication of the report, Sanjeev Teeluckdharry and Roubina Janoo-Jaunbocus were made to resign. That resonated with a lot of sound and fury but there was a calm after the storm. Teeluckdharry and Janoo-Jaunbocus should be naïve not to understand that they have been used as scapegoats. The setting up of the task force is more of a political move and a face saving device for the Government. To set up an inter ministerial committee followed by a task force shows that  Government is dilly dallying to gain time  so as to prevent a further political backlash prior to the 2019 general elections.

The Minister of Good Governance has been allowed to set up a Government within a Government. It defeats logic that from February 2015 to February 2016, the Minister effectuated 14 trips abroad costing a total of Rs 10.3 million to the exchequer with per diem to the tune of Rs 5.5 million. Ramgoolam may have had his defects but he would never have allowed such an abuse of public funds. To allow a Minister to travel with an adviser on 6 occasions is in fact adding insult to injury. The Ministry of Good Governance also employs twenty one persons on a contractual basis . The advisers earn from Rs 50,000 to Rs 105,000 and analysts from Rs 26,675 to Rs 35,375. One Ms Sameerah Shaikmamode works as PRO at the said Ministry. Is she not the same person who was previously working in the  Barrister’s office of the Minister? It would be interesting to know whether the said recruitments have been done according to the principles of good governance. Now, it is pertinent to note that the number of advisers at the Ministry of Good Governance exceeds by far the number of advisors at the Prime Minister’s Office.

The involvement of that Ministry in the BAI affair clearly does not fit within its mandate. Similarly, if the Minister of Good Governance is responsible for Heritage City project, what is the Minister of Public Infrastructure, who also holds a Doctorate in Town and Country Planning, expected to do?  The concerned Minister ranks 18^th out of 23 in the Governmental hierarchy and yet contrary from established practice and unlike his other colleague Ministers, he benefits from a police rider and additional security making him first among equals.

The method of functioning of the Minister of Good Governance has  been detailed in the affidavit of Thomas Galet, of the Dufry Group and Simo Carevic, former Chief Executive Officer of Mauritius Duty Free Paradise . They relate inter alia  : Mr Bhadain  added that they had nothing against Dufry AG and would be more than happy to continue business with Dufry AG but sought their help in order to “destroy” the pervious Prime Minister. The affidavit of his colleague Minister Vishnu Lutchmeenaraidoo is all the more revealing. He states: Bhadain is managing his Ministry like the KGB with his arms spread everywhere in most of the ministries, is bent and minded to evict me from the present government in order to have a comprehensive control over “l’appareil de l’etat”,  Bhadain has prompted ICAC to initiate the enquiry and Bhadain is politically motivated by his personal gain and aspiration to run the affairs of the country. These are extremely serious allegations and had they been false, the Minister concerned would undoubtedly have made a declaration to the police against the persons concerned for swearing false affidavit.

The Minister of Good Governance recently unjustly referred  to the Director of Public Prosecutions as being a “monster”. In fact, by giving the Minister/Ministry of Good Governance such unlimited powers without adequate checks and balances, the Prime Minister might soon realize he has created a Frankenstein Monster.

• Dayal’s cases were lodged on 09, 26 and 27 May 2014 respectively before the Supreme Court. The Attorney General’s Office raised preliminary points in law namely that (a) the action is time barred as per section 4 of the Public Officers Protection Act ( which states inter alia that the action should be entered within two years from the date of the fact, act, or omission which has given rise to the action, suit, or other proceeding) and (b) there had been failure to give one month’s previous notice prior to entering the civil action as per section 4(2)(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. Dayal was suspended as Commissioner of Police on 23 November, 1997 and dismissed on 30 January, 2000. It would seem that the case was entered clearly outside the prescribed statutory delay. Despite these pertinent preliminary points in law raised by his own Office, what motivated the Attorney General to agree to send the case for mediation on 04 October, 2017 and subsequently reach an agreement?
• The Attorney General stated that Dayal has been paid his salary from his dismissal to the time he would have retired in normal circumstances. Is that a normal practice for a civil servant , or for that instance any employee, who has been dismissed to be compensated in that way?
• Dayal has been paid the sum of Rs 15,160,782.23 of tax payers’ money. It is normal practice to seek and obtain Cabinet approval for the settlement of a case exceeding Rs 1 million. The Attorney General and the Prime Minister are duty bound to inform the population whether Cabinet approval was sought and obtained. If so, when this was done? The Attorney General had been Counsel for Dayal in the past. Did he present the Cabinet Memorandum himself and did he declare his interest?
• The Attorney General stated on Saturday 02 June that Dayal had been a victim of the previous Government. It is worth refreshing the Attorney General’s mind that Dayal was dismissed in January 2000 and an MSM/MMM Government led the country from Septmber 2000 to July 2005. If the MSM believed in what the Attorney General stated, then why was no corrective action taken by the then Government?
• The Attorney General went as far as stating that the decision to dismiss Dayal in 2000 was flawed. The Attorney General seems to forget that Dayal had at first to face a Commission of Enquiry chaired by former Chief Justice Bernard Sik Yuen and subsequently a Tribunal chaired by another former Chief Justice, Rajsoomer Lallah in compliance with section 93 of the Constitution. Is the Attorney General now challenging the decision of these two instances?

I firmly believe the Attorney General is duty bound to reply to the above to shed light on what appears to be a shady dealing in the face of political blackmail.

It would be appropriate to put things in their right perspective and set the record straight. On 08 November 1965, the Chagos Islands were called the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) by the British following the BIOT Order. This included 64 out of 65 islands of the Chagos.  Although, that partition was decided prior to the high level meetings at Lancaster House, SSR, as head of the delegation, faced a lot of criticism. Mauritius was then a colony, having Sir John Shaw Renie as Governor who presided over the Cabinet of Ministers with Tom Vickers as the secretary to Cabinet, both British subjects. The inequality of forces was clear. Great Britain also had the legal arsenal to allow the splitting of colonial territories by virtue of the Colonial Boundaries Act 1895. That law unjustly allowed London to split certain African and Asian territories which were on the threshold of obtaining independence.

Even prior to 1965, the British and the Americans showed a keen interest in the Chagos as was reported in Advance of 22 February 1964 and L’Express of 06 August 1964. It is all the more revealing to note that in a recent interview, Sir Hamid Moollan mentioned that he found Malboro cigarettes on the shores of the Chagos back in 1963 and when asked the Chagossians stated Americans came there from time to time.  An extract from the 23 September, 1965 Lancaster House meeting showed that the archipelago would be detached subject to certain conditions namely:

1. When the necessity for certain facilities on the islands would cease, the Chagos Islands will be returned to Mauritius.
2. The British Government would offer to discuss with the American Government to ensure that Mauritius benefits as far as possible from: (a) fishing rights in the waters of the archipelago, (b) facilities for navigation and meteorology, (c) usage of the runway in cases of emergency and (d) all minerals and oil discovered in or near the archipelago would belong to the Mauritian Government.

A note from the British Colonial Office dated 06 October 1965 from the governor Sir John Shaw Renie indicated that the British Government would present the Mauritian demands to the American authorities. The document mentioned that the British Government took good note of the eventual return of the archipelago to Mauritius. The British, nevertheless, insisted on its sovereignty until it was necessary for them and the Americans. The reply of the Secretary for State for the colonies, telegram 254 of 18 November, 1965 revealed the assurance of an eventual return of the Chagos to Mauritius could be given, subject to the decision concerning the necessity of keeping or returning the archipelago being vested with the British. It would seem that in a letter, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher recognized Mauritius as the only country that could eventually claim sovereignty over the islands if they would no longer be necessary for the defence of the West.

SSR set the foundation for an eventual return of the Chagos Islands way back in 1965 and the progress made since on the issue, the victory before the Internal Tribunal of the Law of the Sea and the recent case before the International Court of Justice can largely be attributed to his actions. On 12 September 2018, Sir Aneerood Jugnauth also spoke about the compensation then obtained, questioning how same was used and by whom. It would be good to take him down memory lane. In 1972, SSR wrote to the British referring to the £650,000 compensation to the Chagossians and stated resolutely: Of course, this does not in any way affect the verbal agreement giving the country all sovereign rights relating to minerals, fishing, prospecting and other arrangements. All the above elements clearly show that Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam firmly believed in the sovereignty of Mauritius over the Chagos islands.

Bibliography:

1.The Road to Independence by Moonindra Nath Varma

2.Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam et les accords de 1965 by Hervé Lassémillante