Previous 3 / 46 Next

(;:·�� ... .·, ACH PR •�1 , cuu:ru· . African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility appeal. In the same judgment, the JCPC overturned the decision of the Supreme Court and restored the conviction and sentence of the Intermediate Court. 5. In May of the same year, 2007, he applied before the Supreme Court for his case to be re-opened before the Intermediate Court in light of further new evidence that was not available to him at the time of the initial trial. On 18 May 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the application. He further applied for leave to appeal against this decision to the JCPC, which application was also dismissed on 20 June 2007 because it did not raise any questions of great general or public importance - a precondition for appeals to the JCPC. 6. Following the restoration of his conviction and sentence by the JCPC, and upon a report of the Attorney General to the Chief Justice, the Complainant was summoned and appeared before the Supreme Court on several occasions to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken against him pursuant to the provisions of the Law Practitioners Act and the Code of Ethics for Barristers. During those appearances, he lodged several objections regarding the constitution of the bench that was set up to hear the disciplinary charges, but the objections were dismissed. 7. After several changes, the disciplinary charge was ultimately that his conviction for conspiracy committed in the pursuit of his profession as a Barrister rendered him unfit to practice as a Barrister-at-Law. This charge was no longer based on provisions of the Law Practitioners Act. Instead, the Supreme Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction. 8. The Court eventually admitted his conviction as prima facie evidence and on 30 January 2008 found him guilty of professional misconduct. On the same date the Court ordered the Complainant's name to be struck off the Roll of Law Practitioners upon which the Complainant ceased practic;ing as a Barrister-at-Law. 9. However, after his disbarment, the Complainant acting as a litigant in person initiated several court proceedings against judicial officers including the then Chief Justice, other state officials, and private persons, at all times settling motion papers and other documents by himself and in his own name. c, ... . African("t;\ Union\Y Page 2 of 45 African Commission on Human and Pe 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo West Coast Re Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (2 Email: au-banjul@africa 4r · � r:J o 1 '/

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 459/13 - Devendranath Hurnam v. Mauritius

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Equality
Equality Before the Law
Functioning and Independence of the Judiciary
Right to be Heard before a Competent Court

Case Head Notes: The Complainant is a lawyer, who, in the midst of dealing with charges that were brought against him, wished to represent himself without the services of an attorney. The Respondent State denied this possibility. The Commission found a violation of Article 3 stating that the right to litigate one's own case is protected under the African Charter, and because, otherwise, those who are unable (because of financial or other reasons), or unwilling, to use the services of an attorney will be deprived of their right to be heard by the Court. The Commission also noted that the right to litigate in person is not refused to the representatives of the State, so to deny that right to the other party is unequal. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 stating that, given that the Complainant was refused the opportunity to present his case in front of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee, the Complainant was denied the opportunity to appeal to a competent national organ, and, therefore, denied the right to have his case heard. The Commission further states that no substance would be left to the right to defence if it meant that individuals, whose rights are infringed, can only pursue justice through the services of a third party. The Commission asserted that the right to be defended by counsel of their choice is an entitlement and not a requirement. The Commission found no violation of Article 26 stating that the Complainant submitted a series of allegations which could not be sufficiently substantiated and cannot be considered as solid evidence. They also state that they do not have a reason to conclude that the Respondent State has not allowed the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of human rights, as required by Article 26 of the Charter. The Commission requested the Respondent State to take all necessary measures to ensure the reopening of the proceedings, as requested by the Complainant, and to allow him to be self-represented if he desires. The Commission also requested the Respondent State to ensure that its laws and statutes, regarding access to courts, are in line with its obligations under the Charter and to provide the Complainant with financial compensation.

Country

Mauritius

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: May 23, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 7.1: Right to be Heard
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 7.1.a: Right to Sue for Remedy before a Competent Tribunal
ACHPR 7.1.c: Right to Defence

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts

Duration of Procedure

Sep 18, 2013 ~ May 23, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -20.348404

Longitude: 57.55215200000001

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Mauritius

Primary Documents

Devendranath Hurnam v Mauritius.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 459/13 - Devendranath Hurnam v. Mauritius

Primary Documents

Notifications