1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

In Re:-

Devendranath Hurnam also know as Dev Hurnam,

a British Qualified Barrister, of 22 Bourbon Street,
Port Louis Applicant

Navinchandra Ramgoolam, Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Home

Affairs and External Communications, service at Treasury Building
Port Louis Respondent

In the Presence of:-

The Attorney-General [Unreturned], Y N Varma, Renganaden Seeneevassen

Building, Port Louis Co-Respondent

I,Devendranath Hurnam also called Dev Hurnam, a British qualified Barrister,

Immigration Consultant and Chief Executive of Human Rights [Action Group],
residing at 16 Malherbes Street, Curepipe and having my office at 22 Bourbon
Street, Port Louis and holder of NIC H 1001471400711.

MAKE SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AS A HINDU AND SAY:-

1. I am a citizen of the Republic of Mauritius. I am a qualified Barrister and am also

engaged in active politics having been a Member of the National Assembly for
the period September 2000 to April 2005. I am a founder member of a political
party under the name of Parti Lepep. I am an Immigration Consultant and I head
the Human Rights [Action Group], a voluntary Organisation.

2. I was called to the Mauritian Bar on 30 October 1975 and was in regular private
practice ever since except for two short periods when I was appointed Crown
Counsel and suspended from practice for one year until my name was, on 30
January 2008, outrageously struck off the Roll of Law Practitioners.

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

of the political and legal establishment, in particular of the Police, the
Director of Public Prosecutions and some members of the judiciary. I have
appeared as Counsel in many locally controversial cases (including
appeals before the Privy Council) and have also been a party in few cases
namely Hurnam v Paratian [1998]1AC 707 and Hurnam v The State of
Mauritius [2006] UKPC 49,[2006] 1WLR 857 and in each of which appeals
my position vis-à-vis the State was vindicated. I have further instituted
several civil actions and criminal prosecutions against a number of Police
Officers, members of the Judiciary, legal officers and some barristers who
have caused me irreparable damages and prejudice. Except for criminal
private prosecutions, most of the civil claims are still pending after
protracted stands of the State and the parties.
 2

4. On each occasion arising and in order to protect the integrity of the judicial
process, I have unhesitatingly initiated some of the following proceedings:-

i] D Hurnam v The Attorney-General [IPO] J Forget Contract Chief Justice [SCR

56648 [1996] Moved to have the contract appointment rescinded and prior to
the hearing and before expiry of the contractual period, the Contract Chief
Justice resigned.;

ii] Leave to apply for a Judicial Review in the issue of Rs 20.00 bank Note; Leave
was granted; the main application was set aside but the Bank withdrew the
notes;

iii] Criminal Prosecution for conspiracy against the then DPP Ww A Chui Yew
Cheong, Inspector Ghoora & ors which prosecution was discontinued by the
then DPP Hamuth;

iv] Leave to apply for Judicial review against WW A Chui Yew Cheong for failure
to prosecute Rene Denys Kwet Fat Lan Yee Chiu for breach of the rehabilitation
order; leave refused but prosecution was continued by the Intermediate Court;

v] Criminal Prosecution for Conspiracy against Sik Yuen and Ragen before the
District Court of Port Louis [S][CN 21791/06] when the two protagonists
conspired with the President to release documents of the Commission of
enquiry which documents were illegally retained at the Prime Minister’s Office
AFTER the report alone was remitted to the President; the then DPP Hamuth
came to their rescue yet again discontinued the proceedings;

vi] Criminal prosecution against the then Commissioner of Police [R Gopalsing]

and his Superintendent of Police before the District Court of Port Louis for
abuse of Authority [2006]; again the DPP discontinued proceedings;

vii] Contempt proceedings against DI Ghoorah & anor who re-arrested my then
client after the court had granted bail and although there was documentary
evidence of re-arrest, the Court [K P Matadeen J] set aside the application and

viii] Contempt proceedings against the chief justice Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen, SPJ
Matadeen and Bhaukaurally J pending before the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council Ref: Case no JCPC 2011/0002.

5. Mauritius is a sovereign democratic State with the Constitution as its Supreme

Law. The protection of fundamental rights are guaranteed under the
Constitution and the principle of separation of powers is one of the pillars of its
democracy. The right to the protection of the law and due process is an
entrenched provision of the Constitution. Mauritius has a multiethnic and
multicultural population.

6. In the political arena I stood against Respondent when he was the outgoing
Prime Minister in the September 2000 General Elections and all the
political pundits including some members of the Judiciary predicted that I
would not be elected but after my success, I regrettably refused a
 3

Ministerial post in the face of my then professional obligations towards

my clients. Respondent alone was returned in that constituency.

7. Respondent as styled above is the Prime Minister of the Republic of

Mauritius and is also answerable in Parliament for the Judicial Arm of the
State. He is the Leader of the House in the National Assembly and he
chairs Cabinet Meetings. He is also a door tenant of Thomas More
Chambers [London].

8. Co-Respondent was appointed Attorney-General following the general

elections of May 2010. He did not obtain a party ticket for the said
election in any of the constituencies in Mauritius and having not been
elected, he has no right of vote in Parliament. He is the principal legal
adviser to the Government of Mauritius.

9. The [Mauritius] CT Power Ltd applied to the Ministry of Environment and

Sustainable Development for an EIA Licence in respect to the setting up of a
2X55 MW coal fired power plant in two phases at Pointe aux Caves, Albion, in
the District of Black River which application had the personal blessing of
Respondent.

10. The aforesaid application was examined by several technicians of the Ministry
concerned, environmental consultants, technicians from other related
ministries. Respondent’s personal adviser also opined on the environmental
impact and even participated in live debates on the air and in the press in the
presence of civil societies which had objected to project.

11. On 18 January 2011 the Minister of Environment and Sustainable

Development rejected the said application for the following reasons:-
i] the site is not conducive for such a development;
ii] the adverse impacts on the residential areas due to the inconveniences and
disturbances associated with traffic and
iii] the likely health impacts on the inhabitants of the locality and surrounding
areas.

12. On 15 February 2011 The [Mauritius] CT Power Ltd appealed on a number of

grounds against the Decision/Direction/Order/Notice of the said Minister which
appeal is pending the Environmental Appeal Tribunal CN 02/11. There has been
an exchange of particulars and the matter is listed on or about June and July
2011 for same to be in shape.

13. The Environment Appeal Tribunal is chaired by Mr Magistrate P Kam Sing and
two assessors who are appointed by the Attorney-General to hear and
determine appeals.

14. I aver that any party dissatisfied with the determination of the Environment
Appeal Tribunal may appeal to the Supreme Court.

15. I aver that on or about 13 April 2011, the Mauritius Tamil Temple Federation
[MTTF] celebrated “Varusha Pirapu” at the IGCC, Phoenix. Several politicians
 4

and members of the National Assembly present at the celebrations. Respondent

and the CEO of CT Power Ltd were also present at the said festival and
Respondent addressed the assembled audience [in local creole dialect of
French] at the said function which speech was aired on the MBC TV and
the radios. I have made a faithful transcript of same to the best of my
ability and which is herewith reproduced:

« Nu koir dan democratisation l’economie parcequi nu oule gagne pli

beaucop dimoune contribute dan l’economie et vine banne entrepreneur
dan l’economie et Monsieur Murday emm inn cause lor CT Power mo
bizin dire ou government totalement pour democratisation l’economie
pas veut dire qui nu pe rasse ek lot et prend depi ici nu le gagne pli
beaucoup dimoune qui pe contribute dan l’economie mais moi comme
Premier Ministre mo emm bizin ena enn souci meme si li enn nomination
meme si li n’importe qui zaffer moi mo bizin toujours geutte l’interet
national. Nu bizin sure qui nu l’environment proteger couma li bizin
proteger. Moi mo ti encourage CTPower le CEO la mo ti encourage nu
pas contre mais nu fine gagne enn rapport qui ti mette en doute la
capacity pu respecter les norms du l’environment. Ce qui mo finne
apparn et mo pe dire dans tout franchaise parcequi quand noune trouve
sa nu meme nu fine un peu surpris si vraiment nu pu alle fer enn
quitchose qui pu capave pa bon pu Moris nu pa pu fer li. Mais noune
surprise dans sa rapport la et nu finne examine li moi mo ti fer enn
commentaire mo pas conne qui manier enn development qui pu fer mais
dans rapport la meme lo pe dire enna certaine danger potential et mo
enna dimoune qui conner Professeur Joel Deronne qui enn expert li finne
faire banne suggestion a CTPower cotte capave amiliore leeee.. pu
l’environment pour le moin dangereux mais la mo ti unpeu surpris mo
pe dire ou franchaiment quand sa inne vine dan conseil de Ministres qui
rapport la paraitre defavorabe et enna dimoune fine pose moi question
parcequi mo aussi mo conne dimoune dans la communaute qui senti qui
fer peutetre qui fer government tension pression de banne lezotte
groupe li pas sa dutout monne expliquer qui sa problem la et qui si
jamin sa problem la resoudre nou capave regeutte CTPower pe ena
aucauine raison ki fer nu pas capave regeutter mais seulment nu bizin
fer sure (clappings going on) nu bizin fer sure qui nu respecter le norms
de l’environment parcequi sinon li pas pu bon pou nous meme li pas pu
bon pu Moris et li pas pu bon pu l’environment mondiale qui nu conner
enna enn crise se pourquoi nu va nu va rexamine et nu pu reguette
rapport la parcequi enna enn koze ki finne vine dans mo zoreille qui sa
rapport la finne soidisant manipuler mo pas capave dire ou si li vrai ou si
pas li fausse mais nu va regeutte li parcequi moi mo enna enn souci de
justice »

16. Respondent’s aforesaid speech was widely reported in the press on or about 13
and 14 April 2011. I further aver that Respondent’s speech at the aforesaid
religious ceremony, quite apart from having a communal overtone, is clearly in
contempt of judicial process whereby his conduct is contemptuous. Respondent
 5

has publicly announced that the cabinet will review CT Power’s application
which matter is subject of an appeal. In contrast, the Deputy Prime Minister
refused to answer questions in the National Assembly on 19 April2011 on CT
Power Ltd as the matter is sub judice.

17. I aver that Respondent’s stance in reviewing other matters over which his
attention was specifically drawn in his capacity as Prime Minister and Leader of
the House more particularly in relation to approving the introduction of all bills
in the National Assembly suffers from a major disparity.

18. Co-Respondent introduced in the House, the Courts [Amendment] Bill No. 1 of
2011 after having obtained clearance from Respondent and Cabinet.
Respondent was informed by me in terms of an email that Co-Respondent had
misled him, misled the cabinet, was privy with the judges and at least three
members of the Law Reform Commission who had failed to disclose their
interests during the workings of the Commission and even thereafter at the time
the Report was submitted in October 2010 but he failed to respond. Co-
Respondent failed to disclose that he is party to proceedings initiated by me
before the Supreme Court Re D Hurnam v The DPP & ors SCR 105056 which
matter is resisted by him and he is duly represented and arguments have been
offered on 22 February 2011 before a bench of five judges.

19. The Law Reform Commission submitted its report on October 2010 and the Bill
dated 25 March 2011 was ready for introduction in the National Assembly on
the very first sitting in terms of the Order Paper for 29 March 2011. I aver that
Co-Respondent following protests against the nature of the proposed
amendment withdrew the said bill.

20. The aforesaid bill re-appeared on the Order Paper of 5 April 2011 and Co-
Respondent accordingly introduced same and the second reading was set for 12
April 2011 on which date he addressed the House and deliberately concealed
and suppressed his own interests in the matter to the Speaker and to the House
in that he was using the said proposed legislation for his own personal litigation
pending the Supreme Court. He neither disclosed the failure of some of the
officers of the Law reform Commission who had not disclosed their interests
nor those who appointed them in view of several cases pending against them
before the Supreme Court ever since 2004.[D Hurnam v Mrs M Gulbul, D Chan
Kam Cheong &D Vellien SCR 86712 dated 23.09.2004; D Hurnam v The State of
Mauritius & S Boolell & anor SCR 1/673/04 dated 3.11.2004; D H v The State &
ors Prime Minister, Y K J Sik Yueng, S Boolell, O B Madhub & D ChanKam Cheong
SCR 1/33/07 dated 22.01.2007 & several others] None of the intervenes
pointed out such material non-disclosure nor did they gear the debate that the
bill breaches section 3[a] of the Constitution and therefore required a three
quarter majority.

21. Respondent has still not reacted even after the Bill went through its Third
Reading which bill is now awaiting Presidential Assent. Respondent has, in
contrast, at the aforesaid religious celebrations reacted immediately in
complete disregard of the independence of the Environmental Tribunal seized of
the above appeal whereby influencing its decision and or the decision of other
 6

courts that would be called upon to decide on any appeal that may be
envisaged.

22. Respondent proclaims that he respects all institutions in Mauritius but his
conduct nevertheless is contemptuous of the highest institution when prior to
the 2005 general elections and immediately thereafter he treated the President
of the Republic as “Bap betchaw, Beta Chatwah, Ma nachaninia” and
subsequently refused to attend to the swearing in ceremony of his cabinet at Le
Reduit and instead summoned the President on the street in Port Louis for the
swearing in ceremony. Respondent further refused to attend to the weekly
Presidential meetings for several months. In contrast, however, Respondent had
the swearing in ceremony after the May 2010 general elections held at Le Reduit
this time.

23. In view of my averments of paragraphs 1 to 6, I have an interest in the matter as

it is the duty of each and every citizen to oversee that the law of the land is not
politically interfered with. I further aver that in the unlikely event that the court
rules that I do not have sufficient interests, I am praying that Co-Respondent be
ordered to take over the present proceedings.

24. It is therefore urgent and necessary that the Supreme Court do make the
following orders:-

A. Declaring and decreeing that Respondent has committed a contempt of

Court by publicly stating to the assembled audience [in local creole dialect
of French] at the Varusha Pirapu celebrations organised by the Mauritius
Tamil Temples Federation [MTTF] on or about 13 April 2011 at the IGCIC
amongst others”………..qui sa problem la et qui si jamin sa problem la
resoudre nou capave regeutte CTPower pe ena aucauine raison ki fer nu
pas capave regeutter mais seulment nu bizin fer sure (clappings going
on)……nous conner enna enn crise se pourquoi nu va nu va rexamine et
nu pu reguette rapport la parcequi enna enn koze ki finne vine dans mo
zoreille qui sa rapport la finne soidisant manipuler mo pas capave dire ou
si li vrai ou si pas li fausse mais nu va regeutte li parcequi moi mo enna
enn souci de justice’ basically suggesting that cabinet was misled by a
report on CT Power ….and that Government is ready to revisit the
matter and this at a time when the Environmental Appeal Tribunal is
legally seized with an appeal by The Mauritius CT Power [CN 02/11
against The Minister of Environnement and Sustainable Development’s
refusal to grant an EIA Licence to Messrs CT Power Ltd which public
speech was widely reported on the National TV, Private Radios and in
the press whereby he undermined the course of justice and has
attempted to influence the decision of the aforesaid Tribunal and or he
has influenced the conduct in the litigation process;

B. Declaring that Respondent’s aforesaid public speech is aimed at

influencing not only the aforesaid Tribunal but all other jurisdictions that
may be legally seized with its decision in the event of an appeal that may
be undertaken by the relevant parties and
 7

C. Committing Respondent to jail for contempt and or he be dealt with for

contempt as the Supreme Court may deem fit in the particular circumstances of
the case.

ALTERNATIVELY:

D. Directing Co-Respondent to take over the proceedings as a Relator

Action should the Court find that Applicant has no locus standi and

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

25. I pray accordingly

Solemnly affirmed by the above named deponent]

Chambers, Supreme Court, Port Louis ]
This 20th day of April 2011 ]

Drawn up by me Before Me

D Hurnam Chief Court Officer

Applicant In Person Supreme Court

I certify that this affidavit will be used in Court

D Hurnam/Applicant in Person
8