"The Law Lords would be very wary to interfere in the political process of the country”

Electoral Petition No. 18: Suren Dayal’s Appeal to the Privy Council

* ‘It is very rare that the Privy Council would interfere with findings of fact. It will only intervene on factual findings if these findings are perverse’

By Lex

The appeal to be lodged by Suren Dayal against the ruling of the two Supreme Court judges in dismissing his electoral petition raises some questions about what constitutes undue or unfair influence over voters. A narrow interpretation would allow any party the most populist pledges provided they were included in that party’s campaign manifesto. If to the educated layman such a situation could not have been cautioned by legislators, the provisions and interpretations of the law have to be tested in the more distant and ultimate court of appeal of the Law Lords. Lex weighs in with his legal views.

* Unreturned candidate in Constituency No 8, Suren Dayal has announced his intention to appeal to the Privy Council against the judgement of the Supreme Court, which has dismissed his petition against the election of Pravind Jugnauth, Leela Devi Dookun-Luchoomun and Yogida Sawmynaden. Can the petitioner expect to obtain a judgement of the Law Lords at the earliest?

If all the procedural requirements relating to an appeal to the Privy Council are done speedily, the lawyers may ask the Law Lords that priority be given for the hearing of the case. This may be agreed to by the British judges but not necessarily so, which is why it is difficult to say how long it will take.

* What are the chances of Suren Dayal obtaining a judgement overturning that of the Supreme Court delivered by Justices David Chan Kan Cheong and Karuna Gunesh-Balaghee?

If the Supreme Court came to wrong conclusions in law, the case may be overturned. But again, it all depends on what reading the Law Lords give to the findings of the local judges and how they interpret the provisions of our electoral law.

* In their judgement in the appeal lodged by Ashock Kumar 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…” Why is that so?

It is very rare that the Privy Council would interfere with findings of fact. Their cursus or ruling is that a local court is best suited to deal with factual issues as the court is more familiar with what goes on locally. The Privy Council will only intervene on factual findings if these findings are perverse in the sense that no reasonable person would have come to the conclusion found by the local court.

* What is to be expected from the Law Lords if the same principle of not challenging the findings of the Supreme Court on the basis of evidence and facts were to be adopted in an appeal by Suren Dayal?

Well, if the Law Lords find that the Supreme Court correctly appreciated the facts, then the findings will not be reversed. The next exercise is to determine whether on the facts as found by the Supreme Court it may be concluded or inferred that there was no bribery, treating or undue influence involved. Read More… Become a Subscriber

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 2 September 2022