Judge Vinod Boolell, both the Mackay Report and Sachs Commission emphasized that the new Court of Appeal section should be composed solely of sitting Supreme Court judges. What are your views on recent proposals to include retired or foreign judges under contract?

The establishment of a new Court of Appeal would represent a major structural shift in the Supreme Court. This is a matter that must first be thoroughly discussed with sitting judges. Broader consultations should also be held with the legal profession and other stakeholders.

The Mackay Report highlighted the importance of judicial independence and rejected any form of executive influence over the judiciary. In your experience, how vulnerable is our current system to such interference, and would these reforms enhance or undermine that independence?

Unless proven otherwise with indisputable evidence, there is no reason to believe that our judiciary has not acted independently. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that any politician or individual has interfered with the judiciary. While there have been many rumors to the contrary, they remain unfounded.

The U.K.’s Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 introduced a clear separation between the judiciary and the executive. Do you believe Mauritius needs a similar legislative safeguard, especially during a period of judicial reform?

The U.K. context is not comparable to that of Mauritius. Prior to the 2005 reform, the Lord Chancellor was a Cabinet minister, a politician, and the head of the judiciary – a clear conflict under the doctrine of separation of powers. That anomaly was corrected with the creation of the U.K. Supreme Court and the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice as head of the judiciary.

In Mauritius, no politician or Cabinet minister has any authority over the judiciary. The Chief Justice is the head of the judiciary, and there is no indication that the separation of powers is under threat.

What lessons can Mauritius draw from successful past reforms, such as the Bail and Remand Court or the Small Claims Procedure, when considering a more ambitious proposal like the new Court of Appeal section?

Judicial reforms are always welcome when they aim to strengthen judicial independence and improve the system’s functioning for society. The Bail and Remand Court has made bail motions more efficient, and while not perfect, it functions well. Similarly, the Small Claims Procedure helps resolve disputes more quickly. If the new Court of Appeal helps ease the burden on judges and expedites appeal hearings, it will be a positive development.

Based on your past experience on the bench, how important is public perception in maintaining the legitimacy and authority of judicial institutions? Do you believe the proposed reforms risk eroding that trust?

I don’t believe the proposed reforms will erode public trust in the judiciary. However, it’s worth noting that independence is a complex concept. It can be a state of mind or attitude. Institutions are made up of human beings – not machines – and people have strengths and weaknesses. Once entrusted with an independent institution, personal beliefs must be set aside.

Institutional integrity and independence depend on the individuals who uphold them. Nearly a century ago, Lord Hewart, then Chief Justice of England, captured this idea perfectly: «Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.» That principle still underpins the need for transparency and openness in judicial administration. As long as judges honor that philosophy, the judiciary will remain in safe hands.