Africa-Press – Mauritius. Cader Sayed-Hossen, LP candidate at the 2019 elections withdrew earlier this month his electoral petition which sought to challenge the election of MP Gilbert Bablee in constituency no. 15 (La Caverne/Phoenix).
The case, lodged in November 2019, had still not been resolved four years down the line, and was to start anew in view of the fact that the lead judge had gone into retirement, and two other Judges were appointed by the Supreme Court to hear the matter. Mr Sayed-Hossen said he did not want to be “a party to this mockery of justice”.
He speaks, in this week’s interview, about his disappointment with the manner in which the case has been delayed and the hurdles that came in the way of a timely resolution of his petition due to the Electoral Commission’s numerous objections raised during the trial.
He goes on to suggest the setting up of a Constitutional Division at the level of the Supreme Court with a view to expediting electoral matters which constitute one of the fundamentals of a democratic system. He also talks about the state of democracy in Mauritius, and the disquieting economic situation prevailing in the country presently.
You mentioned in a public statement shortly after taking the decision not to proceed with the electoral petition contesting the election of Gilbert Bablee in Constituency No. 15 that you did not want to be “a party to this mockery of justice”.
Didn’t you see that coming since much earlier?
Cader Sayed-Hossen: It has been quite obvious for a while that all the Respondents, I mean all, not only Gilbert Bablee, were using all the means within the law to delay as much as possible the proceedings in this case.
It is interesting to look at the chronology of events in this matter. I lodged my petition on 28 November 2019, 20 days after the counting date for the 2019 general elections – the law allows 21 days.
The year 2020, as from May, was literally wasted because of Covid and confinement. Things started moving again before the Supreme Court in early February 2021.
By early September 2021, that is 7 months later, all ‘preliminaries’ (Demand of Particulars, pleas and amended pleas of Respondents, replies and amended replies to pleas by myself) had been completed.
If it had not been for the numerous hurdles that the Respondents brought up from early September onwards, this matter would have been resolved much earlier – in one direction or another.
Then started that long period during which the Respondents presented motion after motion to the Court, all of which were rejected in 5 interlocutory judgments by the Court.
On 29 March 2022 I moved to call 2 Respondents (the Electoral Commissioner and the Returning Officer of Constituency No. 15) for personal answers – for them to be interrogated by my lawyer, Senior Counsel Gavin Glover, in open court. This motion of mine was allowed by the Court on the same day. This is precisely when the circus started.
As from then Respondents presented motion after motion to avoid appearing for personal answers – including a motion on 8 February 2023 for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council regarding an interlocutory judgement delivered on 11 January 2023 to the effect that my petition be heard on Merits and that the Electoral Commissioner and the Returning Officer of Constituency No. 15 be heard on personal answers – which motion was also disallowed on 4 July 2023 and the petition Merits was fixed for 3, 4 and 5 October 2023 upon a letter dated 12 July 2023 sent by my attorney, Senior Attorney Raju Sewraj.
By then, it had been 4 years minus 56 days since I had lodged my election petition. And in the meantime, the lead Judge in the case had retired and two other Judges were appointed by the Supreme Court to hear the matter.
Then came the acid icing on that messy thing: the decision of the Court, following the request of the Respondents and following a circular from the Office of the Chief Justice, that the whole petition be heard anew – starting from zero all over again.
After nearly 4 years of squabble and delaying tactics that I call dishonourable, nothing had happened, the hearing had not even started. I did not believe, not even for a nanosecond, that if 4 years of proceedings had led to that – the decision to start all over again – another 1 year or so which is left before the next elections would result in anything at all.
This is when I notified my legal team that I would not proceed with my petition, adding that I was not willing to be a party to a process which I consider to be a mockery of justice. Had I seen that coming much earlier? Actually, no.
We had all reconciled ourselves with the delaying tactics and the multiple hurdles, but we were not expecting that one year or so before the next general elections the Court would decide that the process had to start anew.
At least I did not. As from mid-2022 I had realised that the Electoral Commissioner would do his utmost to avoid being called for personal answers and would therefore try to have the process dragged on.
My legal team and myself were ready and willing to confront that sort of delaying tactics (to which we had by then got used), but we were certainly not expecting that denouement.
* It would seem that it’s the Electoral Commission which through its numerous objections raised during the trial would have probably delayed the resolution of this case.
What do you make out of its position in this, and other electoral petitions lodged by unreturned candidates since 2019? It must be pointed out ever since 29 March 2022, when the Court allowed a motion presented on that same day by my legal counsel that the Electoral Commissioner and the Returning Officers be called on personal answers, the Electoral Commissioner seemed to be the only Respondent in the matter.
I was baffled by the swarms of counsels and attorneys from the Attorney General’s Office, counsels for the Electoral Commission, present in Court at each sitting.
Indeed, the Electoral Commissioner raised numerous objections, presented several motions, including one to ask for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council regarding the Court interlocutory judgement that he be called, together with the Returning Officer, on their personal answers.
Note that all said motions were disallowed by the Court. Let us put all this in context. Among its stated aims and objectives, the Electoral Commission is to ‘provide a level playing field to all stakeholders so that elections are seen to be free and fair’.
I contend that the results of general elections in Constituency No. 15 were not free and fair, and I sought remedy from the Court, as prescribed by section 45 of the Representation of the People Act 1958 [as amended].
Thence I lodged an electoral petition in which I stated, among others ‘that to ensure that the will of the electorate has not been frustrated as a result of the irregularities, shortcomings, mistake or miscount as particularised in the present electoral petition that a partial recount of the ballot papers be ordered in respect of the Petitioner [myself] and the Respondent No. 1 [Gilbert Bablee] at the General Elections of Constituency No. 15 held on 7th of November 2019.
For More News And Analysis About Mauritius Follow Africa-Press
