Le néo-travailliste Me Ashley Ramdass débouté
Enième revers qu’a subi l’Opposition cette semaine devant la Cour Suprême dans l’affaire opposant l’avocat du Parti Travailliste, Ashley Ramdass contre le Premier ministre, Pravind Kumar Jugnauth et le gouvernement sur le renvoi des élections municipales.
La Cheffe-Juge Rehana Mungly-Gulbul et la Senior Puisne Judge, Nirmala Devat ont effet rejeté la plainte d’Ashley Ramdass dans un jugement rendu le 15 juillet dernier.
Ashley Ramdass était représenté par les avocats Gavin Glover, Antoine Domingue et l’avoué Jaykar Gujadhur.
Alors qu’elle ne cesse de brandir l’option de se tourner vers la Cour Suprême contre toutes les décisions du gouvernement en pensant sans doute casser la baraque, cette dernière affaire en date démontre une fois de plus l’incompétence qui règne dans le camp de l’Opposition et leur méconnaissance de nos lois et de notre Constitution. Ce qui en dit long sur leur capacité à gouverner.
Ashley Ramdass, habitant de la ville de Quatre-Bornes et électeur de cette ville s’était dit lésé par l’adoption de la Section 12A(1A) de la Local Government Act de 2023 qui selon lui était anticonstitutionnelle.
Dans sa plainte l’avocat avait relaté les différentes fois que la Local Government Act avait été amendée d’abord une première fois en 2021 pendant la pandémie du Covid et ensuite en 2022 et 2023.
Selon lui ces renvois des élections portent atteinte à ses droits constitutionnels fondamentaux garantis et retranché dans les sections 1, 2, 3, 12, 28, 47(3), 57(2) et 111 de notre Constitution.
De leur côté, le Premier ministre et l’Etat par le biais de leurs représentants légaux avaient rejeté les arguments du plaignant en présentant les arguments suivants :
- Section 12A(1A) of the Local Government Act is not inconsistent with sections 1,2,3,12,28, 47(3), 57(2) and 111 of the Constitution.
- Plaintiff has failed to plead the basis for any breach of sections 1,2,3,12,28,47(3), 57(2) and 111 of the Constitution.
- The system of local government in Mauritius is the product of an ordinary Act of Parliament as opposed to being a constitutional creature.
- The Constitution is silent on local government elections, including Municipal Council elections.
- More specifically, the right to vote in local government elections is found in the Local Government Act 2011 and not in the Constitution. The exercise of the franchise for local government elections is defined by the provisions of the Local Government Act 2011 and the Representation of the People Act (as opposed to being defined in the Constitution).
- In addition, the right to stand as candidate for local government elections is found in the Local Government Act 2011 and not in the Constitution.
- The amendment to the Local Government Act 2011, through the Local Government (Amendment) Act 2023, was lawfully brought by ordinary legislative amendment without contravening sections 1,2,3,12, 28, 47(3), 57(2) and 111 of the Constitution.
- A historical analysis of the various legislative instruments previously in force in Mauritius shows that the right to have free and fair elections periodically at local government level is, at best, a statutory right.
- Local government elections have, in the past, been postponed through ordinary legislative amendments, on a number of occasions.
- Contrary to the Rodrigues Regional Assembly, which is established by the Constitution, local authorities, such as municipal councils, are established by the Local Government Act 2011.
- The power of the President to extend the life of the Co-defendant no. 1 or a local authority is provided for by statute, namely section 12A(1A) of the Local Government Act 2011, and not in the Constitution. The mandate of the members of the Municipal Council of Quatre Bornes, which is determined by statute, can be varied by statute by a simple majority.
- The rule of law and principle of separation of powers have not been contravened by the enactment of the Local Government (Amendment) Act 2023 but reflect a legislative choice made by the National Assembly in passing the said Act; and the amendment of the Local Government Act, through the Local Government (Amendment) Act 2023 was lawfully brought by ordinary legislation amendment without contravening any provision of the Constitution, in particular sections 1,2,3,12, 28, 47(3), 57(2) and 111 of the Constitution.
Après avoir donc pris connaissance des arguments mis en avant par les deux parties et une analyse minutieuse des provisions de la Local Government Act, de la Representation of People Act, de la Constitution, des différentes jurisprudences en la matière, du contexte historique au moment de l’indépendance de Maurice et après, des débats parlementaires lors de la présentations des amendements à la Local Government Act en 2023, la Cour Suprême a trouvé que :
- The legal framework which governs local government in Mauritius does not arise from the The Constitution is silent on local government elections and, more significantly, in respect of the life span of local councils.
- Despite the fact that the legal framework establishing the local government system was already in place at the time when the sovereign Constitution came into existence, the framers of our Constitution deliberately chose not to provide any constitutional underpinning to the holding of regular or periodical local government elections.
- Since the advent of the sovereign Constitution in 1968, which included for the first time Section 1 in its present form, detailed provisions have been enacted by Parliament in the exercise of its ordinary law-making powers for the creation and composition of Municipal Councils, the conduct of Municipal elections, the life span of Municipal Councils and the terms of office of its members.
- There is no justifiable basis for importing, via Section 1 of the Constitution, that the periodical holding of Municipal elections should be elevated to constitutional status as is the case for the holding of periodical and regular parliamentary elections specially entrenched in the Constitution by due constitutional process.
- There is no valid basis for the Court to introduce, by implication or interpretation, that the holding of Municipal elections at fixed periods forms an integral part of the concept of a democratic State as contemplated by Section 1 of the Constitution.
- It has not been established that there is any constitutional impediment which may restrict or limit the competence of Parliament to legislate, pursuant to Section 45 of the Constitution, in order to extend the period of the life of Municipal councils, in conformity with the Local Government (Amendment) Act 2023.
Enième bataille perdue donc pour l’Opposition devant le judiciaire.
0 Comments