After the eventful week we went through, with the flouting of a Supreme Court injunction as well as the consequences of the conflict between the Mauritius Turf Club and the Gambling Regulatory Authority, we sought clear explanations from Sanjay Bhuckory, SC, on these matters and more. 

The Mauritius Bar Council organising a protest march from the Supreme Court to the Line Barracks must be a first. Is the situation that extreme?
It is. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The protest march is being organised to express the Bar Association’s condemnation of the manner in which one of its members was, whilst in the exercise of his profession, physically and verbally abused by the police. The Bar is the last rampart, not to say fence, against dictatorship. We cannot sit on that fence and watch the democratic values of our country being eroded by the day. We are dutybound to act. 

And the Bar Council did act. As one man. The support of former Minister of Energy Ivan Collendavelloo surprised many members of the public. Not you? 
It did not surprise me. Ivan, like many others, is standing up for his profession, regardless of his political affiliation, as this is not a partisan issue. It was about barristers being able to discharge their duties without fear or favour, and without interference or intimidation, in a democratic society.

President of the Bar Council Yatin Varma’s first reaction was against the police, the government and the prime minister. The position of the Bar Council seems to focus on the police. Why?
This is not correct. During its meeting, the association was very vocal about the manner in which the relevant authorities flouted the court order.  

Who exactly are these authorities? Were they named in your meeting?
Yes, the Passport and Immigration Office (PIO), the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), the director of Civil Aviation and the attorney general. These are the same parties against whom the injunction had been granted.

The DPP can decide whether the authorities should be committed for contempt of court for having allegedly breached the Supreme Court order, whether to prosecute the police officers who allegedly assaulted Mr Varma or to prosecute Mr Varma for having allegedly hindered the police in the process of handing over Mr Uricek to the Slovak authorities. 

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has stated in a communiqué that “Mr Uricek was not deported from Mauritius… Mr Uricek was neither extradited from Mauritius… nor was Mr Uricek removed by the State of Mauritius… the removal from Mauritius was effected by the Slovakian authorities after Mr Uricek was handed over by the Mauritius Police.”
I do not share this reasoning, as it would mean that whenever the question of a foreign national’s deportation arises, his country can simply dispatch an aircraft to Mauritius and our police can just ‘hand him over’ to his country’s authorities to be flown off, thereby circumventing the due process of law. This is called extraordinary rendition, and it offends both national and international laws. 

If things did happen the way the Prime Minister’s Office seems to be saying, would that mean that we are no longer a sovereign country?
I wouldn’t go so far, but Mauritius’ handing over of a foreign national to a foreign country on its own territory may very well create the perception that it has relinquished its sovereignty. 

The PMO also stresses that “at, no material time was there any Supreme court order against the police.” 
The court order was, according to the communiqué, duly served on the PMO (under which the police falls) and the PIO (which is a police department). What more, Mr Varma vividly explained to the association how he had, prior to the incident, exhibited the court order to PIO police officers, who acknowledged same and went to seek further instructions. So, how can the police now plead ignorance?

The latest we heard is that the PMO used the Immigration Law. Is that acceptable?
The Immigration Act does not, in itself, provide for the power to remove a non-citizen from Mauritius, as it only deals with his immigration status. 

Wasn’t it the same act used to expel Patrick Hofman? So much so in fact that the act came to be known as the Hofman Law…
Regardless of whether the Immigration Act was applicable or not, the Supreme Court Order should prevail, and be scrupulously complied with. Extradition proceedings were still pending against Mr Uricek at the time of his removal from Mauritius. The communiqué avers that a notice dated 15 April 2022, depriving him of his resident status under the Immigration Act, was served by post on 26 April 2022, i.e. 11 days later, on the very day he was flown off. Such service is denied by Mr Varma. 

We should not be distracted by extraneous considerations such as the suspect’s profile. We should instead focus on whether our judicial system has afforded him a fair hearing, and whether any court order has been complied with.

Apart from the way Peter Uricek left the country, there is also the way he came in. There was a Red Notice by Interpol for him, specifying that he was “a fugitive wanted for prosecution and reported armed and dangerous”. How did the Economic Development Board miss such an obvious red flag for so long?
This calls for an urgent independent inquiry.

How did he get a work permit in the first place?
This should form part of the same inquiry.

People were shocked, among other things, about the fact that the Slovak national was handcuffed and foot cuffed. Is that normal procedure or zeal on the part of the police?
Hand-cuffing, I can understand. But I abhor the foot-cuffing in any situation, as it is reminiscent of barbaric slavery days. 

But should the country not cooperate when it comes to cracking down on international crime?
What is at stake here is not the deportee’s antecedents or the offences he has allegedly committed. The issue is rather whether the rule of law and the due judicial process were adhered to by the authorities before he was flown off. No doubt, our country should assist in combatting international crime. But it cannot do so in violation of domestic and international laws. 

Even if we are dealing with a red flagged drug dealer who seems to be involved in several criminal activities?
Nothing, not even the most heinous crime, can justify the violation of the due process of law by whosoever. The day we compromise on this sacrosanct principle, we would have slipped into autocracy. This is why we should not be distracted by extraneous considerations such as the suspect’s profile. We should instead focus on whether our judicial system has afforded him a fair hearing, and whether any court order has been complied with. Anything else is mere surplusage.

Leader of the Reform Party Roshi Bhadain stated in a press conference that the Judiciary should react, and not allow its credibility to be compromised. ‘If the Judiciary does not react, it would be really serious for the rule of law,’ he said. Do you agree with that? Should the Judiciary not also react for the prime minister’s flouting an order of the Supreme Court?
I have no lesson to give to the Judiciary. I have entire trust and faith in our judges and I am confident that the Judiciary will take up the matter with the Executive and the Bar Council, with a view to ensuring that this deplorable blot on our system does not recur. It is also worth noting that the Judge who issued the court order has, since, referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) “for any action he deems appropriate”.

Mauritius’ handing over of a foreign national to a foreign country on its own territory may very well create the perception that it has relinquished its sovereignty.

What is the DPP supposed to do?
The DPP has three options. First, he can decide whether the pre-cited authorities should be committed for contempt of court for having allegedly breached the Supreme Court order. Secondly, whether to prosecute the police officers who allegedly assaulted Mr Varma. Thirdly, whether to prosecute Mr Varma for having allegedly hindered the police in the process of handing over Mr Uricek to the Slovak authorities. 

As un malheur n’arrive jamais seul, this week has also seen the Mauritius Turf Club polemic. How do you react to the events leading to putting an end to 210 years of history? 
I am, to say the least, disheartened. The more so since I have, up to a recent past, been the Club’s legal adviser. I have, over the years, witnessed how the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) has surreptitiously been gnawing its way into the Club’s rights as a horseracing authority. The MTC fought them tooth and nail. The GRA has finally shown its true colours by sounding the death knell for the club. 

Who will benefit from this?
The newly incorporated ‘Côte d’Or International Racecourse and Entertainment Complex Ltd’ should be able to provide us with an answer very soon. Let us wait: the cat, not to say the horse, will soon be out of the bag.  

Some people see in this move a way of putting an end to the dominance of one community in the horse racing industry. Others believe it’s a repeat of the British American Investment saga. What is your stand on this?
The MTC and the BAI were long-established institutions of this country. They were both sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. As a result, and coupled with the recent events, Mauritius’ radiance as a democratic state is slowly but surely fading out.