‘Death threat’ against mercenary Judge Paul Lam Shang Leen

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 22 December 2007, which includes ‘death threat’ against Judge Lam Shang Leen.

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 Mauritius, the same Supreme Court Judges sit on Appeal, which makes the situation worse as the judges almost always confirm the decisions of their colleagues.

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

California

23 December 2007

http://yacoobazan.blogspot.com/

PS. The article in Le Défi Plus of 22 December 2007 is reproduced below.

http://www.defimedia.info/

Deux juges et cinq avocats menacés de mort

• By Le Défi Plus
• Published 22nd December, 2007
• Ki News?
• Rating: 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.

Prison sentence for criticising controversial Judge Paul Lam Shang Leen

Judge Paul Lam Shang Leen is a well-known controversial judge Mauritian judge. He is believed to be a very bias and prejudiced judge, and many people want him to resign in the interests of justice.

Jean Francois Blais is an aggrieved party who claims that Lam Shang Leen manipulated the case brought by his mother against Coomarduth Dewokee, and he wrote to the judge in person and to other personalities, including the President and the Prime Minister.

Mr Blais's criticisms were considered as an attempt to discredit Lam Shang Leen, and the DPP brought a case against him. The case was heard by Mrs Judge Balgobin who judged that Mr Blais was trying, not to criticise the Judge for his behaviour which he felt was manipulative and against the interests of justice, but to "discredit" him, and sentenced Mr Blais to four months imprisonment.

This judgement tells us that Mauritius is fast becoming a dictatorial state as the judiciary does not allow the people to criticise judges. Lam Shang Leen is infamous for deciding against a party and work the facts backwards to 'fit' his 'judgement'. The case of the Azaan is a perfect example of that. He even went to the extent, as a non-Muslim, to tell Muslims what is and what is not important for their prayers.

The Mauritian appeal judges are the same judges who decide in the first instance. Lam Shang Leen also sits in the Appeal Court. People cannot afford expensive appeals to the Privy Council. Most of those who appeal the the Privy Council win their cases, proving that there is no justice in Mauritius.

Politicians must ensure that judges can render justice, and must pass laws to allow people to criticise them. Judges stick for one other.

Find below the article from the Mauritian newspaper l'Express of 6th August 2007. I am sure people will agree that Paul lam Shang Leen must resign.

My feeling is that Jean Francois Blais is a Creole. If he were a Blanc, Judge Balgobin would most probably have put her tail between her legs, and interpreted the facts differently. Judge Balgobin should not have heard the case; it should have been left to a foreign judge or the case should have been heard by a jury.

Yacoob Azan
California


http://www.lexpress.mu/archive_semaine/display_article.php?news_id=91434

DECISION JUDICIAIRE
Quatre mois de prison pour calomnies contre un juge

Quatre mois de prison pour avoir voulu discréditer un juge, scandalisant, ce faisant, la Cour suprême. Voilà la peine dont a écopé Jean François Blais. Cet homme avait adressé une lettre au juge Paul Lam Shang Leen, dans laquelle il avait fait des allégations malveillantes contre lui. Lettre dont une copie avait aussi été envoyée à plusieurs personnalités du pays, dont le président de la République et le Premier ministre.

La mère de Blais avait intenté un procès à un dénommé Coomarduth Dewokee. Et Jean François Blais accuse le juge Lam Shang Leen d’avoir manipulé le déroulement du procès en question. Pour la juge Premila Balgobin, ces allégations sont fausses, gratuites et sans fondement. Leur but, estime-t-elle, est de discréditer le juge Lam Shang Leen.

Il est d’ailleurs à souligner que ce n’est pas la première fois que Blais adresse des lettres contenant de fausses allégations contre des juges. Il a admis avoir envoyé huit lettres de cette nature, dont celle écrite le 16 mai 2007 pour réclamer la démission du juge Lam Shang Leen.

La juge Balgobin s’est, en outre, dite étonnée par l’attitude de Blais. Ce dernier n’a montré aucun signe de remords en Cour. Il a écopé d’une peine de quatre mois de prison. Le Directeur des poursuites publiques était représenté par Me Iqbal Maghooa, Assistant Parliamentary Counsel, dans cette affaire.

South Korean Christian Suicide Terrorist Cho Seung-Hui Guns Down 32 in the name of Jesus

South Korean churchgoer Cho Seung-Hui terrorised the campus of Virginia Tech, USA, and gunned down 32 of the students and staff alike before killing himself. In an attempt to cover-up his motives for such a massacre, Larry Hincker, a university spokesman made out that : “He was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him,”

No reasonable person can possibly believe that a pro-zionist police state like the USA is finding it very hard to obtain information on Cho Seung-Hui. In fact, all information is in government records and on file before he was admitted at the university.

Although Cho Seung-Hui and his family are described as churchgoers, the Church they go to has not been identified and no one is talking about interviewing his Priest and whether he kept a Bible in his room. If he were a Muslim, all hell would have broken loose, a Koran would have been found in his room, and links with so-called fanatics, extremists and the non-existent ‘Al-Qaida’ would have been swiftly found with justification to bomb and invade an ‘unfriendly’ country and arrest Muslims at home. But, in this case, the authorities prefer to call him “twisted”, a “troubled loner”, “insane”, with “grievances” against the university, which are all sheer fabrication laid bare in the Jewish-controlled media all over the USA in order to distract people from the real problem. They ‘know’ all this about him after claiming ‘difficulty’ in finding information about him.

Of all the victims of Cho Seung-Hui terror, that media only finds one lonely “brave” person, 76 year old Jewish Rumanian Professor Liviu Librescu who was also shot dead, and whom they referred to as a ‘holocaust survivor’. I wonder what sort of survivors are those who escaped the bullets of Cho Seung-Hui !

The indications are that the South Korean Cho Seung-Hui had a grudge against the United States and the South Korean government. He is against the occupation of South Korea by American terrorists who are manipulating the South Korean puppet government. He wants Americans out of South Korea and he is for its unification with North Korea. He is well-trained in the Japanese suicide (kamikaze) techniques, and finds American Universities as accomplices to the American racist politics of terror and occupation because their books are controlled by Zionists and they feed people with lies. He did not have any specific grievances against the Virginia Tech as the Jewish-controlled press is reporting. It appears that his mind was already made up before he joined the university. He would have done the same in any University he would have joined.


Excerpts from Cho Seung-Hui’s video (Added 19/04/07):

“You just loved to crucify me. You loved inducing cancer in my head, terror in my heart and ripping my soul all this time.”
"You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."


The USA is an ‘État de Droit’ where every person has the right to possess a gun. This is guaranteed under the American constitution. It was therefore easy for the churchgoer Cho Seung-Hui to buy a gun and ammunition and go on his killing spree. This killing culture is at the heart of American society which is built upon the killing of Indians. In fact, the laws allowing guns were originally for the purpose of killing Indians. American foreign policy is no different. They support Jewish terror in Palestine, and they are in occupation of countries such as Iraq & Afghanistan where they are killing people in the same way in their own countries. Also remember Vietnam. Cho Seung-Hui is merely following the gun-ho footsteps of George Bush and its allies, something which everyone must condemn.


Paul Lam Shang Leen twisted decisions & Cho Seung-Hui twisted mind

Mauritians must be very careful about the use of this elusive term ‘Ètat de Droit’, which means everything and nothing. This has been evoked in the context of anti-Muslim Paul Lam Shang Leen’s judgment declaring the Azaan (the call for prayer for Muslims) through loudspeakers unlawful, and, in a separate case, declaring the election of Ashock Jugnauth at the 2005 general elections as being corrupt and unlawful because he promised Muslims a cemetery to bury their dead. What is an ‘État de Droit’ for Mauritius is not so for Arabia or the United States. The American Gun Laws (or laws on sodomy or homosexuality) do not form part of the laws of Mauritius. This is not an ‘État de Droit’ which Mauritius wants. In Mauritius, protests may be called ‘illegal’ but in France protests are the citizen’s fundamental right and no permission is needed from anyone. A citizen who exercises the right of protest cannot be regarded as indulging in any illegal activity, whatever this ‘law’ may say. Declaring protests illegal, such as the protests against Lam shang Leen’s judgment, is a feature of tyranny.

Paul Lam Shang Leen’s judgment against the Azaan is both racist and designed to stab every Muslim in the heart thus causing social unrest in the country, but people should not allow themselves to be provoked and should campaign for the laws to be changed for their own protection. The Mauritian government must not regard their protests as unlawful. Similarly, the terrorist Cho Seung-Hui killed so many innocent people to provoke a social backlash, but people should not allow him to succeed in his sinister action. They must protest and campaign for those terrorist Gun Laws to be changed for their own protection. Through his bias against Muslims, Lam Shang Leen has made Muslims feel insecure in Mauritius while, through his hate of American policies, Cho Seung-Hui has made every Chinese looking person feel insecure in the USA.

Yacoob Azan
California, USA / 18 April 2007

Mohamad Vayid does not speak for Muslims

As President of the National Economic and Social Council, Mr Mohamed Vayid does not speak for Muslims. By totally and unequivocally agreeing with the disgraceful and shameful judgment of Paul Lam Shang Leen against the right to use loudspeakers for the azaan (the call for prayer) at the Quatre Bornes mosque Hidayat-E-Islam, Mr Vayid clearly demonstrates, like the judge, equal contempt for Muslims and Islam.

That Mohamed Vayid is an intellectual is in no doubt, but this does not prevent intellectuals from being biased, prejudiced and even corrupt. In fact, intellectuals are proportionally more corrupt than ordinary people because they are in positions of authority and they abuse the confidence of ordinary people. Judges are no exception.

Vayid is reported to have said : " Nous sommes solidaires avec le jugement du juge Lam Shang Leen concernant l'utilisation des haut-parleurs. Il démontre que le cadre légal actuel est suffisant pour assurer la protection et le confort des citoyens. Il n'est pas nécessaire d'amender la loi pour atteindre ces objectifs". He goes on to say that it is not in the interests of the parties concerned to appeal against this judgment, as, according to him, this would delay "un retour à la normale dans les relations communautaires et, peut-être, risque d'exacerber les passions. " He also said that the judgment, including Lam Shang Leen’s judgment declaring null and void the election of Ashock Jugnauth at the 2005 general elections because Mr Jugnauth made an electoral promise for the creation of a Muslim cemetery, confirms that Mauritius Maurice “n'est pas une République bananière et qu'elle est un Etat de droit”.

I would like to ask Mauritians to consider the following:

1. Mohamed Vayid may be a Muslim, but he segregates himself from the majority of Muslims because he considers them inferior to him and his clique. He is not an expert on Islam and has no lessons to give to Muslims. By agreeing with the injustice created by Lam Shang Leen, he proves that he himself does not have a sense of justice and tolerance which he claims.

2. Although not specifically mentioned in the Holy Quran, the azaan is an obligation. It is a call for prayer and is not confined to the four walls of a mosque. In modern times, especially in big towns and cities, the use of loudspeakers is instrumental to this obligation. If Vayid has any notion of tolerance, he should know that non-Muslims must respect this in the same way that Muslims must respect the practices of non-Muslims, including atheists.

3. Vayid must learn that bad laws must be changed, and bad judges must be removed. Mahatma Gandhi did not gain the freedom of his country by respecting bad laws. The slaves were not liberated through the respect of bad laws. How many corrupt judges have sentenced slaves to death in their so-called ‘État de droit’? How many criminals are on the loose, and how many innocents are imprisoned by corrupt and prejudiced judges?

4. What does Vayid mean by ‘État de droit’? He is merely putting dust in people’s eyes. Laws are enacted, amended, repealed. He does not need to be a lawyer to know this. He argues that Mauritius is an ‘État de droit’ and not a banana republic, but at the same time he tells the parties concerned not to appeal against Lam Shang Leen’s judgment. If he really believed in an ‘État de droit’, he would have advised the parties concerned to go right through the Privy Council to gain justice. By his own admission, he is effectively saying that Mauritius is indeed a banana republic. The Mauritian Republic was never formed on republican values anyway. The Republic of France was formed on republican values known as laicity (laïcité).

5. If he had a sound understanding of Islam, he would have known that Muslims are very passionate about their religion, including the azaan which is an integral part of their religion. Because of his own bias and prejudices, Lam Shang Leen was wrong to prevent the Quatre Bornes mosque from using modern means, such as loudspeakers, for its religious purposes. Others use bells, Chinese firecrackers, and so on.

6. No judge can issue an order against X forcing X to restrain a third party which is not even a party to the case. In the case of the non-Muslim Gavin Glover v/s The Municipality of Quatre Bornes, the non-Muslim Judge Lam Shang Leen issued an injunction in Chambers ordering the Municipality of Quatre Bornes to force the Quatre Bornes mosque to stop using loudspeakers when the Development Permit granted in April 2003, 3 years before the present court case was entered, did not impose such restrictions. Gavin Glover did not object at the time, and the Municipality’s decision was not subject to review. I regret to say that Mr Vayid does not display any knowledge of his ‘État de droit’, and of how judges can manipulate facts to suit their own prejudices.

7. As far as Ashock Jugnauth is concerned, I advise him to appeal against Lam Shang Leen’s equally shameful judgment. Electoral promises are fundamentals of our democracy and cannot be regarded as corruption.


Mohamed Vayid has always been known for defending his own interests and not those of Muslims. His intellectual articles, with many fundamental flaws in them, may impress many until someone decides to expose him for what he really is. By flattering a biased judge like Lam Shang Leen, he is speaking in his own interests. To his disappointment, the Municipality of Quatre Bornes is right to appeal against such a shameful judgment. The azaan of Islam to the world must be preserved. It is the duty of every good Muslim to ensure its survival, whether Mohamed Vayid likes it or not. It is Lam Shang Leen who is responsible for the present social unrest in Mauritius, and is giving Mauritius a very bad name abroad. The government of Mauritius must ensure that it appoints judges who can deliver justice to its people and preserve their harmony through mutual respect. Mauritians detest mercenaries.

Yacoob Azan
California, USA / 5 April 2007
http://yacoobazan.blogspot.com

CASE OF ASHOCK JUGNAUTH - JUDGE PAUL LAM SHANG LEEN MUST RESIGN

Politicians make and fulfill electoral promises for the benefit of their electorate, and this cannot be regarded as « buying votes » through « money or any other valuable considerations ».

Based on the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, politicians are not supposed to interfere with the courts, and the courts are not supposed to interfere in politics either. By declaring the democratic election of Ashock Jugnauth in Circonscription No.8 in 2005 at Moka/Quartier-Militaire null and void because of alleged corruption based on alleged false electoral promises made by Ashock Jugnauth and his MSM party, Judges Paul Lam Shang Leen and Bushan Domah are practicing politics more than law.

In general, voters always decide how to cast their votes at elections after considering what benefits they will gain from the candidates they will vote for. In politics, in order to attract votes, candidates and their respective parties may promise a cut in the basic rate of income tax or corporation tax. Nurses may be promised an increase in their salaries. Constituents may be promised better roads and services. The press may be guaranteed freedom of reporting, and people may be guaranteed freedom to practice their religions freely and live it to the full both in private and in public. People may be promised the creation of more jobs and other improvements in their lives. This is how the politics of democracy works. Judges should not interfere in such politics.

Ashock Jugnauth was an MSM/MMM Alliance candidate at Moka/Quartier Militaire in the 2005 general elections, and Raj Ringadoo was the candidate for the Social Alliance. Even though the Social Alliance formed the government after winning the 2005 general elections, Raj Ringadoo lost to Ashock Jugnauth in No.8 and the latter formed part of the opposition. During the electoral campaign, Ashock Jugnauth promised the Muslim community of Moka/Quartier Militaire a cemetery. At elections, it is quite normal for people to tell candidates that they would be prepared to vote a certain way if their demands are met when the candidates form the next government. It has also been established that certain recruitments were made in hospitals a few days before the elections when Ashock Jugnauth was Minister for Health. The validity of those posts were never questioned, and no one has been dismissed.

The Judges Lam Shang Leen and Domah found that both the promise of a cemetery for Muslims and the recruitments in hospitals amounted to corruption in securing votes. If this is the case, then all electoral promises made in all democratic countries to secure votes should, according to them, be corruption as well and all elections should be declared null and void. When the judges said « " a candidate will fall foul of the law when he is involved in buying votes i. e. exchange vote for money or any other valuable considerations instead of using cogent arguments to influence the voters. There must be an element of bargaining and the corrupt motive will stand so obviously from the facts », they clearly erred in law as their reasoning is deeply flawed and undermines the very pillar upon which democratic elections are fought. Arguments are not the only instrument used to obtain votes. Politicians make and fulfil electoral promises for the benefit of their electorate, and this cannot be regarded as « buying votes » through « money or any other valuable considerations » as the Judges allege.

Ashock Jugnauth is right to make known his intention to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London with the view to gain justice and overturn such a glaringly unjust and unfair judgment. Mr Jugnauth is lucky that he has the financial means to go to the Privy Council. But there are many Mauritians who cannot afford this in the face of similarly wrong and twisted decisions rendered by, especially, Judge Paul Lam Shang Leen. Let us consider another of his equally unjust and unfair judgement.

The Azaan Case
This is a case brought by an non-Muslim, Gavin Glover, against the Municipality of Quatre Bornes to restrain a masjid in Quatre Bornes from using loudspeakers for the purposes of the Azaan, the call to prayer to Muslims. Paul Lam Shang Leen is of opinion that Azaan through loudspeakers is unlawful and amounts to noise pollution. The call to prayer, which is a prayer in itself, to Muslims is a fundamental right for Muslims and has been practised in Mauritius for decades. In modern times, loudspeakers have always been used. Lam Shang Leen is a non-Muslim and he decides that such a call is not necessary to be made through loudspeakers which use is unlawful. The use of speakers has never been unlawful, but the abuse of its use may be unlawful. The judge distorts the facts and decides that the sound of the call to prayer is noise pollution but does not refer to any expert report as what amounts to noise pollution. The sound of Church bells cannot be regarded as a noise, but this case concerns Muslims but not the Judge’s Christian brethrens and makes it easier for him to decide against Muslims and their religion.

The Azaan is not intended only to the people present at the mosque, but also to Muslims in the surrounding community. By unjustly and unfairly deciding against the giving of Azaan through loudspeakers, Lam Shang Leen is trying to defeat the very purpose of Azaan and stabs each and every Muslim through the heart.
By such a biased and prejudiced judgment, Lam Shang Leen demonstrates his vitriolic disposition against Muslims and Islam. It is not up to him to decide how Muslims should practice their religion which has existed for centuries. Muslims are very passionate about their religion and the judge did not refer to any Islamic expert on the issue either.

Paul Lam Shang Leen must resign
On the one hand, Lam Shang Leen does not want Muslims to give Azaan via loudspeakers, and on the other he does not want Muslims to have a cemetery in Moka/Quartier Militaire in order to bury their dead, because this electoral promise, according to his biased and warped interpretation, is corruption. Even though, in the latter case, Judge Bushan Domah concurred, there is no doubt in people’s mind that Paul Lam Shang Leen is the mastermind behind this revolting judgement against Ashock Jugnauth, and against his electoral promise for a Muslim cemetery. The mercenary judge, referred to as “ZORRO” in legal circles, also tarnished the character and image of Mr Jugnauth and his MSM/MMM Alliance because his electoral promise was also approved by Cabinet decision. The Privy Council will reverse ‘Lam Shang Leen & Co’. People wonder what Lam Shang Leen would have decided if the electoral promise was for the construction of a casino for the Chinese mafia? He most probably would have said that he could not interfere in politics.

In the Azaan case, would he have preferred Chinese firecrackers instead? The Municipality of Quatre Bornes is right to appeal against such a nonsensical judgement against the use of loudspeakers. But the problem is that the appeal will be heard by judges who also sit in ordinary, reluctant to overturn decisions of their colleagues, and justice is not evident even on appeal. Ultimate expensive appeal to the Privy Council may be the only realistic option, unless the government passes relevant laws to protect the use of loudspeakers for religious purposes. Given his overt racism and prejudice, Muslims must object to Lam Shang Leen presiding over any legal case concerning them. The Judge is trying to incite people against Muslims on their right to deliver the Azan to their community. In the months following the Mauritian independence, a Franco even shot at a mosque’s speakers with his shotgun.


Due to his bias and prejudices, Lam Shang Leen is unable to deliver justice and he has given the Mauritian judiciary a very bad name both at home and abroad. People have no confidence in the dubious and suspicious methods which he uses so arbitrarily. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, and Lam Shang Leen does not inspire confidence on both counts. Paul Lam Shang Leen must resign. In democracies, people have the right to ask biased and prejudiced judges to step down because they are a danger to the social cohesion of the communities. History is full of corrupt politicians, and judges too !

Yacoob Azan
California, USA – Sunday, 01 April 2007.

LAM SHANG LEEN’S RACIST AND ANTI-MUSLIM JUDGEMENT AGAINST THE AZAAN

The judgement of Paul Lam Shang Leen against the Azaan is a disgraceful judgement designed to stab Muslims through the heart.

The case against the Muslim call to prayer, the Azaan, given through loud speakers was brought by Gavin Glover, a non-Muslim (and son of ex-judge Glover?). Gavin Glover alleged that Azaan through loudspeakers was disruptive because it created noise pollution and against the law. The judgement given in favour of Gavin Glover was delivered by Judge Lam Shang Leen, a non-Muslim with a clear bias and prejuidice against Muslims and Islam.

Although the judiciary is supposed to be independent from politicians, Judge Lam Shang Leen is supposed to uphold the laws passed by politicians. The government of Mauritius has always been a tolerant government which respects all religions, even though the calls to prayer are delivered through loudspeakers, church bells or other means. The call for prayer, which Maulana Adam Sahodeea correctly states is a prayer in itself, is an Islamic obligation, something which Lam Shang Leen appears ignorant of. One speaks in terms of the SOUND and not the NOISE of the call to prayer – le son des cloches et non le bruit des cloches! Lam Shang Leen sheer prejudice prevents him from making the difference between SOUND & NOISE. If he argues that the speakers are too loud, then he should ask the Quatre Bornes mosque in question to lower its volume and not argue that the use of loudspeakers amounts to ‘noise pollution’ and unlawful. It is his judgement which pollutes Mauritian society.

Lam Shang Leen demonstrates further ignorance when he says that : “the right of the devotees to practice their religion is not infringed by prohibiting the use of loudspeakers for the calling of daily prayers; the balance of convenience lies in upholding the rule of law namely prohibiting the unlawful use of loudspeakers…” [l’Express 28 mars 2007]. Since when has the use of loudspeakers become unlawful ? They are used all over the place – at weddings, parties, political rallies, and more.

What does Lam Shang Leen know about the requirements for Muslims « to practice their religion », and the « infringment » of such practice ? In the old days, the muezzin call to prayer was not done via loud speakers because they were not invented at the time, and people lived in small communities and tribes. In modern times, people live in cities and big towns like Quatre Bornes, and loudspeakers are a necessity for the muezzin to reach Muslims, whether they are the majority or minority in those conglomerates. This right has always been respected in Mauritius, and it is an acquired right too. Except for a few racists and prejudiced people, this fundamental human right of Muslims has always been respected. Even the Commissioner for Human Rights, Dheeraj Seetulsing, accepts this. The laws may have to be changed to make it clearer for racists to understand.

Lam Shang Leen has no lessons to give Muslims on how they should practice their religion, even though some Muslims traitors may well agree with him. When the one who signs ‘Un Musulman’ says : « La foi ne se mesure pas en décibels ! » , or when Hervé Duval Junior says " Aux yeux de la loi, Dieu n'a jamais été sourd ", they simply demonstrate sheer ignorance of particular faiths. [le Mauricien, 28 mars 2007]. Azaan is an obligation for Musilms and cannot be equated with noise as in decibels. And, since God is not deaf, then, according to Mr Duval, one should stop going to mosques, temples and churches and pray in their own hearts at home. According to Samad Ramoly, church bells and the use of loudspeakers for the purpose of Azaan are both wrong. By arguing that one wrong (church bells) should not be used as justification for the other wrong (Azaan via loud speakers), Ramoly demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how individual faiths express themselves.

The judgement of Paul Lam Shang Leen is a disgraceful judgement designed to stab Muslims through the heart, and to create a pyschosis against Muslims in Mauritius. He clearly twists legal provisions, misinterprets facts and gives his own prejudiced and warped version of facts. Muslims are strongly advised to appeal and to object for any of their legal cases to be presided by such a biased and prejudiced judge who has, for a very long time, given the Mauritian judiciary a bad name. Muslims must fight with their every breath to preserve their inalieanable traditions and for their fundamental human rights to preserve the use of loudspeakers for the muezzin’s call for prayer in modern times. Non-Muslims have always respected this, just like Muslims have always respected their rights. Muslims have no lessons to learn from Gavin Glover or Lam Shang Leen. The sooner Lam Shang Leen steps down, the better it will be for the Mauritian justice system.

Yacoob Azan

California, USA

29 March 2007