"It is inconceivable that the Dayal case should have taken four years to be determined by both the Supreme Court and the Privy Council”

Interview: Sanjay Bhuckory, SC

‘The process took three years in the case of Ringadoo’

* ‘The Law Lords offer a guarantee of independence and impartiality, not only to Mauritians, but also to foreigners who use our local jurisdiction’

* ‘The toothless watchdog that the Electoral Supervisory Commission is should be given the power to act’

Senior Counsel SanjayBhuckory has argued cases up to the Law Lords, most notably in the Raj Ringadoo case of electoral corruption against Ashock Jugnauth, which he won at both the Supreme Court and the JCPC. It was fitting therefore that we sought his impressions on the publicly telecast final stage of appeal in the Suren Dayal petition, asking him by the same token to elaborate on relevant issues of corrupt or undue influencing of elections and what urgent or necessary reforms should be brought to handle more efficiently electoral pleas at our leveland the continued reliance on the Law Lords as external appellate court.

Mauritius Times: The hearing of the appeal, and submissions of the different counsel, in the legal challenge of Suren Dayal of the election of Pravind Jugnauth, Leela Devi Dookun-Luchoomun and YogidaSawmynaden before the Privy Council has been the subject of various comments, but mostly not very appreciative of the submission of the counsel representing S. Dayal. From your own personal experience before the Law Lords, would you say those comments are unjustified?

Sanjay Bhuckory SC: It would not be fair for me to comment on the performance of the appellant’s counsel. Given that he is a luminary in the field of electoral laws, and the magnitude of the case, I can fully understand that expectations were running very high.

The live coverage of the Privy Council debates has permitted the whole world to watch the proceedings, whilst exposing the judges and the barristers to the public glare. It can be a perilous exercise, but it is necessary that justice be dispensed before as wide a public as possible.

I would propose that our important appeal cases be televised live, with a view to promoting transparency and accountability in the administration of justice, as well as raising the standards of the Bar. If we have introduced the camera inside the National Assembly, I fail to see why it cannot be introduced in our appellate courts as well.

* Various key points from the judgment of the Law Lords in the case Raj Ringadoo v Ashock Jugnauth before the Privy Council have been referred to in the submissions of the Counsel in the present matter. What is there in that judgment that could inform us in the appreciation of the facts in the Dayal v Jugnauth case?

I represented Raj Ringadoo before both the Supreme Court and the Privy Council. The Ringadoo judgment will certainly throw light on the Dayal appeal, inasmuch as it has drawn a clear demarcation line between normal electoral campaigning and a corrupt bargaining for votes: “A candidate does not fall foul of our electoral law against bribery where he is selling so to speak government performance or electoral programme or party manifesto to attract votes. That is normal electoral campaigning. The candidate must convince the voters why they should vote for him or his party.
“He will however fall foul of the law when he is involved in buying votes i.e., exchange vote for money or any other valuable considerations instead of using cogent arguments to influence the voters. There must be an element of bargaining and the corrupt motive will stand out so obviously from the facts.”

* In their judgment in the appeal lodged by Ashock Jugnauth, who contested the ruling of the Supreme Court, the Privy Council held that the ‘Supreme Court based its judgment to a significant extent on findings of fact which the judges made after due consideration of the oral evidence which they had heard and which they accepted.Normally, such findings would be very difficult to challenge in an appeal to the Board…’ Do you think the same principle will be applied in the present case?

Yes indeed, as the Privy Council will not lightly interfere with the findings of fact of the Supreme Court. In any event, appellant Dayal has not challenged the factual conclusions of the Supreme Court. His arguments are eminently in law, such that the Privy Council’s judgment will draw legal conclusions from admitted facts.

* What is, in your opinion, the key issue in the Dayal v Jugnauth case?

One of the key issues is whether or not the promise made by Pravind Jugnauth on 1 October 2019 at the SVICC, during a meeting with old persons, to double the Basic Retirement Pension, amounted to an electoral bribe, namely whether or not it was a promise to endeavour to procure a valuable consideration in order to induce electors to vote for him and his party. Read More… Become a Subscriber

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 14 July 2023