Page 1 of 11

1. I am a public officer, appointed since 03 February 2009 by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission to act as the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of the Republic of Mauritius.

2. I am a public officer, appointed since 03 February 2009 by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission to act as the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of the Republic of Mauritius.

3. Under section 72(3) of the Constitution, the DPP has the power, in any case in which he considers it desirable to do so, to:

(a) “institute and undertake criminal proceedings before any court of law…; (b) take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have

been instituted by any other person or authority; and (c) discontinue at any stage before judgment is delivered any such

criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by himself or any other person or authority.”

4. Respondent No. 1 (ICAC) is established under the Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA).The POCA was enacted with the primary aim of investigating public officers committing acts of corruption.

5. The Director General of Respondent No. 1 holds a substantive post of

Assistant Parliamentary Counsel at the Office of Attorney General. 6. Respondent No. 2 is responsible, inter alia, for designating police officers to

work with Respondent No. 1 and investigating criminal offences under the POCA.

7. The officers designated by Respondent No. 2 are seconded for duty to

Respondent No. 1 by virtue of section 24 (5) (b) of the POCA. The said officers have limited powers of arrest, as directed by Respondent No. 1 under section 53 of the POCA.

8. Co-Respondent is the Ministry responsible for the allocation and management

of leases regarding state lands and has as its Minister, Vice Prime Minister Showkutally Soodhun.

9. I was abroad on mission from 29 June 2015 to 08 July 2015. I was apprised

both abroad and upon my return to Mauritius by articles which recently appeared in the press that the Respondents are intending to proceed to arrest me in connection with an alleged case of conflict of interest reported by the Co-Respondent No. 2 pursuant to section 13 of the POCA.

Page 2 of 11

10. I aver that the above articles purport to ventilate/publish information obtained from sources close to Respondents and Co-Respondent, and contain unfounded and grossly misleading statements and baseless allegations.

11. (A Minister mentioned) made a series of threatening statements directed

against members of the judiciary as allegedly being involved in state land frauds in press articles including:

i. the issue of Le Defimedia newspaper of 26 June 2015:

“Nou inn gayn ban gro, pran dimunn ziska judiciaire…”

ii. the issue of Le Mauricien of 27 June 2015:

« une équipe du Central CID travaille à plein temps avec le ministère pour cela et bientôt nous viendrons de l’avant avec un nouveau dossier concernant des membres du judiciaire. »

iii. the issue of Le Matinal newspaper of 27 June 2015:

« il a laissé entendre que les membres de haut calibre du judiciaire pourraient être inquiétés dans les jours à venir. »

12. I aver that in the light of the events that unfolded and transpired thereafter, it

is clear that (A Minister mentioned) was referring to my person.

13. On 09 July 2015, my office issued a Communiqué wherein I stated that I rejected the allegations, as reported in the media.

14. By virtue of a Communiqué dated 09 July 2015, Respondent No. 1 revealed

that it had received a referral on 06 July 2015 from the Co-Respondent in connection with Sun Tan Hotels Pty Ltd (hereinafter “Sun Tan”). It is apposite to note that the referral came from (...) who had already made attacks against my person, as reported in the press articles referred to above.

15. In the issue of Le Mauricien newspaper of 09 July 2015, it was reported that the Respondent No. 1 intended to convene me for a statement under warning and that I would be arrested thereafter

16. On Friday 10 July 2015, the Co-Respondent issued a Communiqué, stating

inter alia, that it was the officers of Respondent No. 1 who called at the said Ministry to secure documents in connection with Sun Tan.

17. In the issue of L’Express newspaper of 11 July 2015, mention is made of the

contradiction between the statement of the Respondent No. 1 on the one hand and that of the Co-Respondent on the other hand, as to who had initiated the enquiry.

18. I aver that the press articles convey the impression that my eventual

statement and/or version would be irrelevant to the decision to arrest me.

Page 3 of 11

19. The allegations as reported in the media are to the effect that:

i. In or about 2008, I, as a law officer, had given advice of a general

nature in relation to leases of State Land;

ii. In 2011, whilst I was DPP, I attended a meeting, with the Permanent Secretary and other officers of Co-Respondent, with the chairman of Sun Tan, of which I was also a director; and

iii. as a result of that meeting the rent payable by Sun Tan in relation to

the lease, was fixed at Rs 45,000- instead of Rs 1.6M, which was the rent applicable to new leases.

20. I aver that the imputed allegations are frivolous, baseless, malicious, intended

to harm my reputation and to prevent me from exercising my duties as DPP independently. Moreover I aver that the conduct of any such investigation is calculated to oust me from office.

21. Any suggestion that I could have acted in breach of section 13 of the POCA

by attending the said meeting in my capacity as director of Sun Tan is wholly misconceived and untenable inasmuch as I was not acting as a public official within the meaning of the POCA

22. I aver that, as DPP, I had no function nor any duty to perform nor any official

business to conduct in relation to the grant of leases of state land, the fixing of rent or any conditions attached to the leases. I attended the said meeting in my private capacity for the purpose of making representations for and on behalf of Sun Tan. I took no part in the decision making process or any of the proceedings of the Co-Respondent relating to this matter. Moreover, I could not have exerted, nor did I exert, any pressure on any public official.

23. I am advised and verily believe that the Co-Respondent did seek legal advice

from the office of the Attorney General and that similar cases were dealt with in a similar manner by the Co-Respondent in the light of the legal advice it received on a case to case basis. It would therefore be ludicrous to suggest that I had any part to play in the manner in which the Co-Respondent dealt with the representations made for and on behalf of Sun Tan.

24. In 2008, I did, in my capacity as Parliamentary Counsel, represent the State, in the Campement Site Owners case before the Supreme Court. It is in that context that I gave advice to the Co-Respondent in 2008 and consequently to Government, in relation to the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008.

25. I aver that at all material times, I acted as Director of Sun Tan, and not as

DPP, in relation to representations made by Sun Tan to the Co-Respondent.

Page 4 of 11

26. I therefore reiterate that at all material times I only acted in my private capacity in relation to Sun Tan.

27. Section 72(6) of the Constitution guarantees my independence as DPP as follows: “In the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by this section, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.” I aver that my independence as DPP is vital to the discharge of my functions.

28. In the discharge of my duties as DPP, I have advised prosecution against a

number of high ranking members of the present government, including:

i. Hon. Pravind Kumar Jugnauth, for ‘conflict of interest’ under section 13 of the POCA in a case (the Medpoint case) which arose at a time when he was Minister of Finance;

ii. Vice Prime Minister Soodhun, who (i) is subject of prosecution before the

Intermediate Court for the offence of diffusing false news, and (ii) was convicted on 19 January 2015, respectively for holding an unlawful public gathering and using threatening words at a public gathering, pursuant to a decision to prosecute by the Office of the DPP;

iii. Mr Prakash Maunthrooa, the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister’s Office and

appointed by the State to act as director in two major state-owned companies, is being prosecuted for aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime, namely a corruption offence.

29. I aver that with respect to paragraph 28 (1) above, in or about January 2015,

whilst the case against (A Minister mentioned) was still ongoing before the Intermediate Court, the (...) attempted to induce me into discontinuing proceedings on the basis that he believed there was no case against the said

(A Minister mentioned) when, the evidence as reviewed indicated otherwise. In a meeting attended by myself and three officers of the DPP, the (...) stated on more than one occasion that, in his opinion, (A Minister mentioned) had committed no offence.

30. I aver that the complete lack of reliable and independent evidence of any wrong- doing on my part that would warrant an investigation supports the inescapable inference that the decision to refer, and the decision to open an enquiry were made for improper and oblique motives and not because there is a proper basis for them.

Page 5 of 11

31. I further aver that any alleged evidence against me cannot stand the test of ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion’ in view of the manner and circumstances in which such evidence appears to have been gathered.

32. I aver that as a result of a Cabinet decision taken on 3rd April 2015, in my

capacity as DPP I entered a Plaint with Summons on 25 June 2015 before the Supreme Court against the State of Mauritius to seek constitutional redress, regarding the decision to merge the ODPP with the Attorney General’s Office. I further averred that since the new government had assumed office, in the wake of the general elections of December 2014, numerous institutional changes had taken place in the criminal justice system, including the termination of the employment of the highest officials of the Respondent No. 1 and changes at the head of institutions like the Financial Intelligence Unit, and the Central Criminal Investigation Division.

33. On the day of my return to Mauritius, i.e. 08 July 2015, I phoned the Director General of Respondent No 1 to express my concern at the fact that the press reports concerning me in connection with the Sun Tan matter had the effect of destabilising the Office of the DPP. I went on to reproach him that I was never informed nor contacted by the Respondent No 1 and, that the only information I had so far came from the press.

34. I have been since been contacted by phone by a retired Judge of the Supreme

Court, (…) and who purported to act on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, to the following effect:

i. On Thursday 09 July 2015, he called me saying that he had been

entrusted with a “delicate mission” and invited me to meet him at his residence (…) I did not attend the meeting as I subsequently found out that the “delicate mission” consisted in convincing me to step down as DPP.

ii. On Friday 10 July 2015 in the morning, he called me again. I

explained that I did not attend the meeting on the previous evening, as in the meantime I had found out that the purpose thereof was to request me to step down in exchange of the investigation being discontinued, and I considered this suggestion to be “insulting”. He said that he understood my position.

iii. On Friday 10 July 2015 in the afternoon, he called me anew saying

that the investigation would be discontinued but he warned me that I should keep a low profile, and avoid making public statements, “otherwise it would be my own undoing”.

Page 6 of 11

35. Moreover on Friday 10 July 2015, the Director General of Respondent No 1 phoned me to reassure me that nothing untoward would happen to me and requested me to send a letter to give my version. I again categorically rejected that offer, considering it to be improper. The Director General of Respondent No. 1 also confided to me that the Respondent No. 1 was being subjected to tremendous pressure.

36. On Monday 13 July 2015, at about 11h30, the Director of the Corruption

Investigation Division of Respondent No. 1 called on me at my office and the following ensued:

i. He stated that there was nothing incriminating against me in the light of

his preliminary investigation but that the Respondent No. 1 was under tremendous pressure and he believed that such pressure emanated from (Two Ministers mentioned) to proceed with further investigations;

ii. He was thus instructed to inform me that I would have to call at the office of Respondent No. 1 to give a statement under warning;

iii. He also informed me that he would serve me with a formal convocation

which he had in his possession. I declined to accept this document and requested that the proper procedure be followed.

iv. Later on, at around 15h00, officers of the Respondent No. 1 hand

delivered a letter dated 13 July 2015 informing me that the Respondent No. 1 is investigating in potential offences in breach of sections 9 and 13 (2) of the POCA and requesting me to call at the office of the Respondent No. 1 not later than 22 July 2015.

v. I caused a Communiqué to be issued on the same day regarding the

above matter 37. I aver that the decision to convene me or investigate my conduct, cannot be made

in the light of mere allegations and unverified evidence by reason of my tenure of office, especially by virtue of section 93 of the Constitution of Mauritius.

38. I aver that whilst Respondent No. 1 indicated that the Co-Respondent had

referred the matter to it on Monday 06 July 2015, the latter on the other hand stated on 11 July 2015, that it was ‘last week’ that Respondent No 1 came to the Ministry to secure documents in connection with Sun Tan. Reference to ‘last week’ could only mean the week starting Monday 29 June 2015 and ending Sunday 05 July 2015, and not 06 July 2015, as indicated by Respondent No 1. This discrepancy is evidence of the levity and lack of seriousness with which the present investigation is being conducted.

39. I further aver that, in relation to the potential offences which are now being

investigated, the enquiry which has only started after 06 July 2015 relates to events dating back to at least 4 years and in respect of which there has never been any complaint by any person or authority in the intervening period.

Page 7 of 11

40. I note with concern that, as stated in Respondent No. 1’s letter dated 13 July 2015, statements have been recorded from “various persons”, thereby meaning that any person who may have implicated me in relation to a potential offence under section 9 or section 13 of the POCA, would have done so between 06 and 13 July 2015, that is well after the public accusations made by (A Minister mentioned) [supra paragraph 11].

41. I aver that against the above background, the present intention of the Respondents to convene me and investigate my conduct is unlawful, made with improper and oblique motives. I further aver that the real intention behind this investigation is to embarrass and undermine me in my office so that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for me to carry out my functions and I should be under a compulsion to resign.

42. I aver that the contemplated arrest is designed to circumvent my security of tenure

of office guaranteed under the Constitution and prevent me from exercising my duties and functions as DPP in full independence.

43. The purpose of the present application is to ensure that I receive a fair and

independent treatment in accordance with the constitutional provisions. I aver that I am ready and willing to submit myself to any proceedings properly instituted pursuant to section 93 of the Constitution.

44. I aver that the (...) still holding a substantive post of (...) in the Attorney

General’s Office finds himself in a clear situation of conflict and professional embarrassment, in as much as legal advice in relation to Sun Tan was tendered by the Attorney General’s Office.

45. I further aver that it is the duty of Respondent No. 1 which is engaged in the investigation of alleged offences, to exercise an independent, objective and professional judgment on the facts of each case. I aver that this has not been the case in the present matter.

46. I aver that it could not have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution to

render a DPP liable to be treated as any other public officer as regards criminal prosecutions, given the specific procedures laid down for removal from office under section 93 of the Constitution.

47. I further aver that by reason of the provisions of section 82(1) of the POCA, which

provides that “no prosecution for an offence under this Act […] shall be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions”, the DPP cannot be the subject of an investigation and prosecution under the POCA and that any acts done by him in the performance of his duties can only be investigated by a tribunal duly appointed by the President under section 93 of the Constitution.

Page 8 of 11

48. I therefore aver that the present enquiry by Respondent No 1 amounts to a colourable device designed and aimed at, circumventing the clear provisions of section 93 of the Constitution.

49. In the issue of Le Dimanche/L’Hebdo newspaper of 12 July 2015, Mr Robin

Appaya, barrister, and Senior legal adviser of the Ministry of Housing and Lands, is reported to have stated that the enquiry was still ongoing and commented extensively on the investigation. (…)

50. I aver that information about the investigation is being systematically leaked

and/or released to the press in order to embarrass and undermine me in my office so that I should feel compelled to resign.

51. I aver that every member of the Board and officer of Respondent No. 1 are bound

by section 81 of the POCA to maintain confidentiality and secrecy in relation to any “matter, document, report and other information relating to the administration of” the POCA.

52. However, in addition to the press articles already referred to above, in the issue of Le Mauricien of 13 July 2015, an article captioned “SUN TAN HOTELS SAGA: L’ICAC convoque le DPP pour interrogatoire formel” further revealed information which could only have emanated from Respondent No. 1, despite the claim in the said article that Respondent No. 1 is bound by section 81 of the POCA. The information revealed was as follows:

“Aux dernières nouvelles, le DPP a refusé d’accuser réception de l’assignatiion à, interrogatoire ce matin. Il aurait déclaré au préposé de l’ICAC: «mo pa dakor. Mo pa pou pran okenn lette».”

“Les délibérations de la commission de l’ICAC de samedi, soit six jours après le « Referral » du ministère des Terres dans une affaire alléguée de conflits d’intérêts, sont une confirmation que la Preliminary Inquiry aux termes des dispositions de la Prevention of Corruption Act a été complétée dans le temps minimal imparti dans la loi. Les membres de cette instance de l’ICAC, qui ont pris connaissance des témoignages et des pièces à conviction, soit des extraits des dossiers au ministère des Terres, ont avalisé la décision d’une « Further Inquiry » avec l’audition formelle du DPP.”

“Des détails disponibles confirment que la convocation formelle a été signée du Director Investigation Division de l’ICAC, Chimunlall Ghoorah à 10 h ce matin à Me Satyajit Boolell, qui disposera d’un délai arrivant à échéance au plus tard vendredi pour se présenter au Réduit Triangle.”

Page 9 of 11

“Lors de son déplacement au QG de l’ICAC, le DPP sera entendu de manière préliminaire sur le dossier Sun Tan Hotels PTY Ltd et ses intérêts directs et indirects avec la gestion de cette société, propriétaire de 12 bungalows sur ces Pas Géométriques pieds dans l’eau. Subséquemment, il sera confronté aux versions des faits des principaux témoins à charge, dont l’ancien Senior Chief Executive au ministère des Terres Noorani Oozeer et des cadres techniques du ministère présents à la réunion du 19 juillet 2011 au ministère des Terres.”

“Du côté de l’ICAC, des avis légaux ont été sollicités et obtenus pour éviter tous faux pas dans ce combat de titans au plus haut niveau du judiciaire. Mais le véritable casse-tête demeure au niveau de la mise en application de la clause 47 de la Prevention of Corruption Act.”

53. Further, in the online edition of Le Defi of 13 July 2015, an article captioned “Affaire Sun Tan : l’Icac invite Me Satyajit Boolell à donner sa version des faits” further revealed: “le Directeur des poursuites publiques (DPP), Me Satyajit Boolell, n’a pas été convoqué ni comme témoin, ni comme accusé dans cette affaire. Il a été invité à donner sa version des faits puisque son nom est mentionné dans cette affaire. L’Icac lui a adressé une correspondance en ce sens. Un courrier lui a aussi été adressé par voie postale. Me Satyajit Boolell aura jusqu’à la semaine prochaine pour se présenter à l’Icac. »

54. I aver that the public interest could not be served by disclosing such information,

given that the same was likely to undermine and destabilise me and my office. I thus aver that Respondent No. 1 is acting in complete disregard of its obligations under section 81 of POCA, thereby belying its lack of independence and its improper and oblique motives.

55. In the issue of Weekend newspaper of 12 July 2015, it was reported that the ICAC

would convene me early this week for a statement under warning and that I would be arrested thereafter.

56. I aver that the acts and doings of the Respondent No1 are irrational, oppressive,

abusive and contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. I further aver that the acts and doings of Respondent No 1 smack of bad faith.

57. I intend to lodge a main case before the Supreme Court for a remedy to the same

effect. 58. I further aver that:

(i) there is a serious issue to be tried;

(ii) this is an urgent matter that requires the immediate intervention of the

Honourable Judge in Chambers;

(iii) the prejudice caused to my office, myself and my family cannot be

adequately compensated by damages;

Page 10 of 11

(iv) greater hardship would be caused to me than to the Respondents if this injunction were not granted; and

(v) the balance of convenience lies in my favour.

59. In the circumstances, it is therefore urgent and necessary that:

A. The Honourable Judge sitting in Chambers Issues an order in the nature

of an interim writ of injunction :

i. preventing, prohibiting and restraining the Respondents from acting

upon, and giving effect to, the letter of 13 July 2015 issued by Respondent No. 1 and/or investigating me, and

ii. preventing, prohibiting and restraining the Respondents from

effecting my arrest.

B. For a summons calling upon the Respondents to show cause why the order in the nature of an interim writ of injunction granted under paragraph A above should not be converted into an interlocutory order.

C. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, should the Judge refuse to issue the order in

the nature of an interim writ of injunction, for a summons to issue, calling upon the Respondents to show cause why an order in the nature of an injunction be not issued in my favour.

i. preventing, prohibiting and restraining the Respondents from acting

upon, and giving effect to, the letter of 13 July 2015 issued by Respondent No. 1 and/or investigating me, and

ii. preventing, prohibiting and restraining the Respondents from

effecting my arrest.