Africa-Press – Mauritius. Lex provides his legal insight in the case entered by Suren Dayal against candidate Pravind Jugnauth on the grounds that the latter would have allegedly filed a false affidavit regarding his electoral expenses during the 2019 elections in constituency No.8.
This private prosecution, to which the Office of the DPP has been included, may raise interesting legal arguments in the Supreme Court, on the scope of private prosecutions by aggrieved parties and the stand of the DPP in this high-profile case will certainly be awaited, as much as the Court ruling.
* Suren Dayal has levelled allegations in his Private Prosecution lodged against MSM candidate Pravind Jugnauth to the effect that the latter would have sworn a false affidavit in relation to his electoral expenses in Constituency No. 8 at the last general elections.
His contention is that he has a locus standi in this matter. The DPP has been roped into the case, as ordered by the Supreme Court. What’s the reasoning behind this ruling of the Court?
Under section 72 of the Constitution, the DPP is vested with the powers ofinitiating a prosecution either by himself or through other persons. When the DPP alone can put a stop to a case and he cannot delegate that power, it is right that the DPP should be put into cause and take a stand.
* Was it necessary for the Supreme Court to make that order, or was it to be expected that the DPP could and would of his own volition have stepped in and taken over the case before the Court?
For More News And Analysis About Mauritius Follow Africa-Press
