Previous 5 / 46 Next

(;i""iJ 6�!:tEf1 uuxco . Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 14. Meanwhile, various cases instituted in person by the Complainant were being stayed by the Courts pending the ruling of the Supreme Court as mentioned in paragraph 13 above. 15. On 1 July 2011, the Supreme Court delivered its ruling (the 1 July 2011 ruling) upholding the objection that under the Supreme Court Rules 2000 persons cannot initiate proceedings in person. Instead, proceedings have to be initiated through an attorney, save in exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court did not find any exceptional circumstances quoad the Complainant's motion for an order to re open his criminal case, and thus set it aside. 16. The Complainant sought special leave of theJCPC to appeal with respect to two matters: (a) the 1 July 2011 ruling of the Supreme Court; and (b) a decision in contempt proceedings instituted by the Complainant against the then Chief Justice. He states that the issue of the right to litigate in person did not arise in the second matter. On 13 December 2011 the JCPC refused the Complainant leave to appeal against those rulings because the appeals did not raise arguable points of law of general public importance. 17. The Complainant further states that since the above-mentioned proceedings, he has come to learn of various underhand machinations which he believes led to his trial, conviction, disbarment, and subsequently being prevented from instituting and prosecuting his cases as a litigant in person. The matters relate to the conduct of the then SPJ who later became the CJ. The alleged conduct, which he believes was motivated by personal vendetta against him, borders on alleged surreptitious interferences and undue influences by the then SPJ/ CJ in various proceedings concerning the Complainant. Among others, the alleged interferences included manipulating the composition of the Intermediate Court which tried and convicted him; manipulating and interfering with the prosecuting authorities; manipulation of the disciplinary proceedings against him; and influencing judicial officers who were handling his various cases. 18. In addition to the alleged interferences, the then CJ exhibited what he believes is nepotistic partiality in favour of a medical doctor by granting the latter provisional permission to practice medicine after his licence was not renewed on account of a conviction. Page 4 of 45 African Commission on Human and P 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo West Coast R Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: ( Email: au-banjul@af https:/ach !

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