Africa-Press – Mauritius. Article 30 of our Constitution clearly provides for the circumstances in which the dismissal of the President of the Republic or the Vice-President may be considered, namely in the event of “violation of the Constitution or any other serious act of misconduct”. Producing the material elements that can demonstrate, establish and prove some “violation” or “act of misconduct” is not child’s play, is it?
Me Antoine Domingue: In absolute terms, of course, but in the case that concerns us at present concerning the president in office who is still in office, I think that the constitutional provision that was referred to is article 28, as it was explained by the former Chief Judge Sir Victor Glover in the columns of the Express, last Saturday. Her reading of the Constitution is that the President of the Republic cannot collect any emolument from any party other than the State.
If we agree with this reading of the Constitution, which seems correct to me, and if we analyze the documents that have been published in the press to date, there would be, in my humble opinion, a ‘prima facie case ‘ of a possible violation of the Constitution or of ‘misconduct’ which would be the responsibility of a constitutional court established on the proposal of the Prime Minister and on the vote of two thirds of the National Assembly.
If the evidence that is provided is supported by documents, which have been confirmed by the president herself during conversations with the minister-mentor, it would not be child’s play, but adult’s play!
* From there to dismissing the incumbent, will it be a “long process”?
Of course, because it is a procedure that requires a qualified majority of the House, followed by a suspension, and an investigation followed by the conclusions of a constitutional court responsible for shedding light on a possible violation of the Constitution or other “misconducts”, which could lead to suspension, and which represents only a first step towards dismissal.
The founders of our constitution thus wanted to assure the Head of State and the Vice-President, once appointed by the Chamber by a simple majority, a guarantee of security of tenure in order to preserve and guarantee their independence.
I can’t find anything wrong with it. After all, men and women pass away, institutions remain. * The press had announced the intention of the Government – although this has not been confirmed – to go through a constitutional amendment in order to circumvent the problem.
This initiative would probably not have garnered consensus. Is the problem serious enough to touch the Constitution? An ex post facto and ad hominem constitutional amendment would serve no purpose in the circumstances and would only further weaken an already tarnished institution.
We cannot seriously consider taking this path because we cannot drive the point even further, even if it means devaluing the institution. * To return to Sir Victor Glover’s comments, the latter was careful to point out in the interview granted to the express that he cannot pass judgment on the Platinum Card affair without having all the facts.
The documents published in the press relating to the statements of the credit cards used by the President of the Republic are not enough: “you have to know the circumstances and know if they tell the whole truth or only part of it”, he says .
He’s probably right, right? Of course, he did not want to pass any judgment on this case because it could be subject to investigation by a court. As far as I am concerned, based on the information that is now in the public domain and on reading article 28 of the constitution, it could be that we are in the presence of a ‘prima facie case’.
This is the reason why the question was raised at a special meeting of the Council of Ministers, which took a unanimous decision on this subject. This unanimous decision was immediately communicated to the president by the minister-mentor, hence the decision of the latter to withdraw, at least according to the statements of the minister-mentor and his son. But all of this is now being questioned by the presidency…
If this is so and if this questioning is confirmed, it will be up to the Prime Minister, the parliament and the constitutional court to act according to the provisions of the constitution… Without wishing to prejudge the question, it seems to me that the attitude of the presidency following the publication of the Barclays Bank documents and its refusal to communicate clear and definite answers poses a problem, The communication would have been necessary in order to dissipate any ambiguity which could weigh heavily in the balance.
The answers you say are necessary, in the circumstances, came from Mubarak Sooltangos, the one who is presented by the press as an adviser to the President.
“No court will sanction a president for the alleged violation of an unwritten code of ethics… A credit card is not remuneration… She used it because there were technical problems with her personal card… She refunded the money, so she didn’t take any remuneration…” As a pathologist, how do you react to these arguments?
We would have expected better! Of course, I do not share this opinion, which seems absurd to me. Especially in the absence of detailed explanations from the presidency on a question that touches the very heart of article 28 of the constitution.
I do not think that this kind of argument can find favor with the Prime Minister, with the cabinet, with the parliamentarians who will soon be called upon to decide the question.
Without wishing to play the guesser, I therefore foresee a suspension followed by a thorough investigation. Beyond that, it would be pure speculation on my part. I therefore reserve my judgement. * Do you have any questions, however, Mr.
Domingue, about the change in attitude of the Government vis-à-vis the President in the space of 24 hours? Initially, the Council of Ministers took the decision to initiate dismissal procedures, and the next day we learned that the President would remain in office for the time of the celebration of independence, in order to preserve serenity.
around this celebration. . . It seems to me that we are in the presence of what is commonly called a ‘face-saving device’ as part of the festivities marking the 50th anniversary of the country’s independence.
It seems to me that it was necessary at all costs to deal with the most urgent matters and, as you say so well, to preserve the serenity of the fiftieth anniversary celebrations.
The Prime Minister therefore came to reassure us that the President would leave after the end of the celebrations but before the next return to Parliament. It is the moratorium that was either given to her or that she would have accepted.
But whatever ! If it is still in business when the day comes, everyone will have to play their role and fully assume their responsibilities, on the benches either of the Government or of the parliamentary opposition.
I can only rejoice in this beautiful cordial understanding suddenly found on both sides of the room in the service of a noble cause. * What would you say to those who argue that the press is violating the President’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and without even hearing her version of the facts?
No one prevented him from presenting his version of the facts in relation to this affair. I do not understand this approach of coming to imply that the documents published in the press, in this case the bank statements, are not authentic. I find this serious, very serious even on the part of a Head of State.
If the defense of his excellence is based on a question of ethics, why not have admitted from day one that the bank statements are authentic and claim the absolute right to use them as he sees fit? Whatever one says and whatever one thinks, the Head of State does not have a sovereign right. Let’s not get the century wrong.
Even monarchs have always been and are sub Deo et lege, under God and the law! As for the criticisms leveled against what is described as the “relentlessness” of the press, the violation of banking secrecy, it was the duty of the press to comment on the matter as soon as the documents were made public.
It was also his duty to tell us the facts as they are, and not as we would like them to be! Mauritian citizens, as a whole, depend on the press to keep themselves informed.
Freedom of expression, which implies the freedom to inform, to be kept informed and to be informed, is the cornerstone of our democracy: “Mauritius shall be a sovereign democratic State which shall be known as the Republic of Mauritius. Democracy perishes in darkness! Silence is not the path to safety!
Moreover, I do not see the correctness of this approach which consists in playing the ostrich by walling up in silence when one claims that one has done nothing wrong, when one knows or that the we should know that money is a good servant but a very bad master, that we have or should have at the top of the state a ‘healthy disrespect for money’, and especially when we enjoy immunity absolute, as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius in a judgment delivered by former Chief Justice Ariranga Pillay.
I am not far from sharing the opinion of one of my mentors: the late Sir Gaëtan Duval QC who proclaimed, in his time, about the blue-white-red alliance, of which he was a part, but with the meaning of the formula that we still like to recognize in him: “This is the best government that money can buy!” I cannot say whether his remarks of the past are still relevant.
But how can you be sure? * The press has reported on a process which would have been initiated at the level of the ICAC which would have already initiated an investigation under the provisions of the ‘Prevention of Corruption Act’ on the granting of an ‘Investment Banking License’ in November 2016 to Alvaro Sobrinho.
It seems that we want to seek the comments of the President because, according to Weekend of last Sunday, what should “sharpen the curiosity of the investigators”, it is the coincidence about the negotiations relating to obtaining this license and those of the presidential expenses incurred with the Platinum Card during the same period.
What do you think ? The facts happened while His Excellency was in business, and as the Supreme Court had decided in a previous case, his immunity is therefore absolute.
Unless we make a subtle distinction between what has been done within the framework of the function and what would not come out of the function. But I wouldn’t venture into that area.
It would be a fruitless argument. The Head of State needs immunity. We cannot allow a Head of State to live with the obsession of a Damocles sword from the ICAC hanging over his head! I wouldn’t admit it!
* Is there in this case, in your opinion, ‘more than meets the eye’, which would explain the embarrassment of each other?
By the way, ‘what has already met the eye’ and which was not visible to the naked eye of Deputy Prime Minister Ivan Collendavelloo in Sobrinho’s eye is already shocking enough for me not to need to add more!
Allow me the expression but these days we, poor ordinary citizens, we no longer have the embarrassment of choice, but the choice of embarrassment. . .
* In any case, all the embarrassment encountered by the President of the Republic and the country finds its source in the investments of Alvaro Sobrinho in Mauritius and his “philanthropy” in the financing of scholarships and the promotion of science.
Even though he has not reportedly been convicted by a court of law so far, there were still “red flags” from his hassles with the law in Portugal and elsewhere. It seems that not only were the necessary precautions not taken, worse he had access to the VIP Lounge at the airport. Can you understand this?
From what I have been able to gather, there has been a chain of events since Sobrinho allegedly applied for a permit with the Central Bank of England, which apparently was rejected. To check.
On the other hand, what we are sure of is that our legislation has been amended, we don’t quite know why, but we know how, so that the FSC can afford to grant an ‘Investment Banking Licence’, which previously was within the purview of the Bank of Mauritius.
I still do not understand the reason for this measure. Anyone who knows the damage to the FSC cannot fail to see a hair in the soup. . . Who took the initiative and responsibility for such a decision?
Is it because, for sure, our central bank would have rejected such a request for a permit? Let us know the identity of ALL those who took this initiative at this precise moment. Were the “red flags” there? They were prominently displayed for those who had eyes to see! Follow my gaze!
Malgré tout cela, on a déroulé le tapis rouge pour Sobrinho; et on lui a même publiquement décerné un certificat de moralité après l’avoir regardé dans les yeux… Qu’a-t-on bien pu y voir ? Je vous le demande… La question reste toujours posée et elle est toujours d’actualité.
Quelle opinion faites-vous de la prise de position du Ministre-mentor dans cette affaire ? Il est clair que le premier ministre et le Ministre-mentor n’étaient pas sur la même longueur d’onde, ce dernier ayant choisi de soutenir ouvertement la présidence par une déclaration publique qui a fait grand bruit.
Sir Anerood n’avait-il pas prétendu que Son excellence avait le droit d’utiliser la carte platine mise à sa disposition par le Planet Earth Institute pour se procurer de ce dont elle avait besoin – « pou li acheter ce qui li bizin ! » et qu’elle n’avait rien à se reprocher puisqu’elle avait tout remboursé ?
Quand, comment, à qui et combien ? Il ne nous l’a pas encore dit. Je ne comprends donc pas comment il a pu, par la suite, se raviser. Le premier ministre, quant à lui, a depuis peu radicalement changé de discours et il ne rate aucune occasion de pontifier.
Il est grand temps qu’il joigne le geste à la parole. Ne dit-on pas que new broom sweeps clean… Il ne faut donc pas qu’il fasse mentir le dicton maintenant qu’il bénéficie d’une belle unanimité du Cabinet et du Parlement : It is high time that he should throw his weight around!
* Y aurait-il beaucoup de Sobrinho à l’œuvre dans la nature, ici et là ? Je n’en sais rien. Je ne les fréquente pas ! Mais ne dit-on pas “qu’un clou chasse l’autre !”
Le seul mérite auquel Sobrinho puisse prétendre est d’avoir fait éclater au grand jour certaines pratiques au sommet de l’Etat, et ce, à la face du monde après un demi-siècle d’indépendance, … et ce n’est que le début !
Attendons donc patiemment la suite : mange pistache, guette cinéma ! Après tout, nous ne sommes qu’au début de nos surprises ! Ne nous arrêtons pas en si bon chemin. Comme dit la chanson – Qui vivra verra…Que sera sera…
* Mais la dernière, c’est que la Présidente a annoncé par le biais d’un communiqué, posté sur le site web de la State House, ce mercredi à 11h30, qu’elle rejette toute perspective de démission.
Elle annonce aussi qu’elle est « prête à intenter une action en justice pour se défendre contre les accusations calomnieuses qui la visent… » C’est la guerre ouverte… mais aussi prévisible, non ?
On prétend que toutes les vérités ne sont pas bonnes à dire. Je n’ai jamais souscrit à ce dicton, surtout quand il s’agit de l’intérêt public. Dans le cas qui nous préoccupe, je ne passerai donc pas par quatre chemins pour vous livrer le fond de ma pensée : Tant pis, le spectacle ne sera pas beau à voir!
For More News And Analysis About Mauritius Follow Africa-Press
