Back in 2018, the Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking (“the Commission”), chaired by Paul Lam Shang Leen, had caused chaos within lawyers, police officers and many others. The Commission aimed at enquiring and providing a report on, inter alia, the drug trade in Mauritius, its channels of entry in the country and the operational effectiveness of the various agencies in the fight against drug trafficking. Since then, the report has been the subject of many controversies, mainly with people contesting its content. This week, the report has once again made the headlines in light of two successful Judicial Reviews by the Supreme Court lodged by Raouf Gulbul and Assad Rujub respectively.
For Me. Raouf Gulbul, he has demanded that the Court declares the 6 pages which refer to him to be declared void for being in breach of natural justice and ultra vires. The pages contained many observations and comments on the manner in which Me. Raouf Gulbul conducts his practice and his potential closeness with drug traffickers. After having reviewed the submissions of each party, Judges Marie Joseph and Lau Yuk Poon came to the conclusion that the findings in relation to Me. Raouf Gulbul were flawed ‘for having been reached without due observance of the law of evidence and in breach of natural justice’ and thereby, they made an order that these pages be expunged from the report.
Concerning the second Judicial Review’s judgment, Mr Rujub sought an order to expunge the relevant parts making reference to him, which are found on two pages of the report. Judges Teelock and Gunesh- Balaghee made a lengthy analysis of the evidences and findings that were contested and concluded that the Commission had been given broad powers through the terms of reference. The Commission was mandated to ‘inquire into applicant’s (Mr Rujub) conduct, dealings and association with prisoners convicted for drug offences and those on remand’. However, the Supreme Court had some reservations concerning two paragraphs which they stated were outside the purview of the mandate of the Commission. These two paragraphs have therefore been removed from the report. It should be noted that the Judicial Review has been dismissed on all other aspects.
