The government is responsible for the appointment of judges, and it is the government’s duty to set up a mechanism in order to sack mercenary and bias judges like Paul Lam Shang Leen since tyranny always begins with the judiciary. Any criticism of any person is bound have a discrediting effect on that person one way or another, and it is well within the right of free people to criticise and to reply to criticism.
This article is a contribution to the publication « Deux juges et cinq avocats menacés de mort » (« Death threats against two judges and five barristes ») in le Défi Plus dated
Under S77 of the Constitution, Puisne Judges in Mauritius are “appointed by the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission”, and “No person shall be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is, and has been for at least 5 years, a barrister entitled to practise before the Supreme Court.” The JLSC itself is a government organisation, and in the appointment of judges it has to apply various other criteria, including seniority and relevant posts occupied, such as, as Magistrate, DPP, Solicitor General, and so on. But above all, it is the government’s duty to ensure that an appointed judge can deliver justice to the people of the country based upon the laws passed by politicians. A known racist, for example, should not be appointed judge. Although aggrieved parties have rights of appeal against wrongful decisions, whether through prejudice, corruption or otherwise, made by judges, judges themselves cannot be sued or prosecuted for all the harm they cause through their bad decisions. In
Tyranny begins with the judiciary
Judge Paul Lam Shang Leen is well-known for his biased and controversial decisions. He is believed to be motivated by sheer bias and prejudice, tending to come to his decision first and then manipulate the facts to suit his decision. Most people do not have the means to appeal, and J Lam Shang Leen knows this very well. The injustice he is believed to have caused through his decisions breed more injustice, given a deficient appeal system. When an aggrieved party, Jean Francois Blais, tried to expose Paul Lam Shang Leen by alerting the judiciary, including Lam Shang Leen himself, and other government institutions, he was prosecuted and sentenced to four months imprisonment by Lam Shang Leen’s colleague Mrs Judge Balgobin for trying to “discredit” Lam Shang Leen. Mrs Judge Balgobin judgement is clearly designed to deter victims of mercenary justice from exposing judges like Lam Shang Leen. Tyranny always begins with the judiciary. First, Jean Francois Blais was not judged by a jury, and, secondly, it has not been reported that Mrs Judge Balgobin had based her decision on any proof that any unlawful harm had been caused to Judge Lam Shang Leen. Jean Francois Blais was sentenced to prison because the lady Judge believed, in her ‘opinion’, that Mr Blais's criticisms were considered as an attempt to “discredit” Lam Shang Leen. But any criticism of any person is bound to have a discrediting effect on that person, one way or another, and the person criticised also has a right of reply.
The strange case of ex-CJ Ariranga Pillay
While the Chief Justice is appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister, his or her Number 2, the Senior Puisne Judge is appointed by the President upon the advice of the Chief Justice. The ex-Chief Justice Ariranga Govindasamy Pillay once complained that his rights have been baffled through the proposed appointment of the then Puisne Judge Bernard Sik Yeun as Chief Justice, and argued that the Chief Justice post should have been his on the ground of his ‘seniority’ as Senior Puisne Judge. Newspaper headlines reported Ariranga Pillay as saying : « Mes droits ont été lésés ». Although Ariranga Pillay was the Senior Puisne Judge, he was also said to have had a propensity for alcohol and to be a bad example for the Mauritian judiciary, which probably explained why the then PM did not recommend his appointment as Chief Justice to the President. Because he is a Tamil, politicians made out that the PM was prejudiced and the government was set to lose Tamil votes.
The well-seen and well-trusted Judge Bernard Sik Yeun was subsequently replaced by Ariranga Pillay as Chief Justice, and Bernard Sik Yeun appointed Senior Puisne Judge. Who dare speak of Separation of Powers? Ariranga Pillay only recently retired and replaced by Judge Bernard Sik Yeun, who is the present Chief Justice. Under Ariranga Pillay, the Mauritian judiciary earned a bad name as he protected mercenary judges like Lam Shang Leen. Justice was hardly seen to be done as facts and legal provisions are manipulated. Under Chief Justice Bernard Sik Yeun, people can now only hope for true justice, although many are wary of the present Senior Puisne Judge Keshoe Matadeen who is said to have been formed in the same school of thought as Ariranga Pillay.
Since laws are passed by politicians, the only avenue open to the people is to campaign for justice by a just judiciary. The government is responsible for the appointment of such judges, and it is the government’s duty to set up a mechanism in order to sack mercenary judges such as Paul Lam Shang Leen. The removal of judges for “inability or misbehaviour” as defined under the constitution is hopelessly inadequate, which explains why no judge has ever been investigated upon for mercenarism or sheer prejudice and bias. Ability to deliver justice should prevail over any form of seniority in so far as the appointment of judges is concerned, and the Mauritian Constitution does not make seniority a pre-requisite either.
Given the dismal state of the Mauritian judiciary, the Chief Justice Bernard Sik Yeun should make a case for its complete reform and for the setting up of an independent Court of Appeal with its own Appeal Court Judges who the people can trust.
Yacoob Azan
http://yacoobazan.blogspot.com/
PS. The article in Le Défi Plus of
Deux juges et cinq avocats menacés de mort
- By Le Défi Plus
- Published
- Ki News?
- Unrated
Le Défi Plus
Le Défi Plus News Service
View all articles by Le Défi Plus
Judiciaire
Une personne qui se présente comme un prêtre a adressé une lettre au chef juge, Bernard Sik Yuen, vendredi, dans laquelle elle révèle qu’un habitant du Sud lui a confié qu’il a en sa possession une carabine et qu’il projette de commettre une série d’assassinats. Ses cibles : deux juges et cinq hommes de loi.
La lettre, rédigée sur un ordinateur, a également atterri à notre rédaction dans l’après-midi de vendredi. Dans cette missive (rédigée en français et qui comprend plusieurs fautes grammaticales et orthographiques), le ‘prêtre’ laisse entendre que l’habitant du Sud est venu le voir, jeudi, à la paroisse où il officie pour se confesser. Il raconte que c’est la première fois qu’il rencontrait cet individu.
L’homme, explique l’auteur de la correspondance, lui a confié qu’il est victime d’une grande injustice à propos d’une affaire de terrain. Pour laquelle il a même été condamné. C’est pour cette raison qu’il aurait décidé de se faire justice. “Selon ses dires, il aurait en sa possession une carabine (...) et il projette de faire une série d’assassinats contre toutes les personnes impliquées : deux juges et cinq hommes de loi”, peut-on lire dans la lettre. Les noms d’un juge (Paul Lam Shang Leen) et de deux avocats (Jacques Panglose et José Moirt) sont cités.
L’auteur soutient qu’étant donné son statut de prêtre, il est tenu de garder sous silence la confession faite par un paroissien. Mais, qu’après mûre réflexion, il a décidé de briser le silence, car la vie des individus est menacée. “ S’il vous plaît, faites le nécessaire pour éviter un tel massacre !”, demande le ‘prêtre’ au chef juge.
No comments:
Post a Comment