“The Supreme Court of Mauritius was fully entitled to conclude that corruption was not established on the facts and that this was a normal election campaign.” This is an extract from the Privy Council judgment.
Dame Sue Carr concluded that the Supreme Court was right to find that no corruption had been established. She summarised the judgment of the 5 Law Lords in 12 points. In the present case, they found, the proposals relating to pensions and remuneration in the public sector were made in public, allowing for criticism and debate. They had been the subject of prior political debate and had underlying reasoning relating to manifesto commitments. The proposals are related to important and sensitive matters of public interest. The nature of the proposals was also canvassed by other candidates or political parties.
The proposals were generic and of national impact and not limited to members of individual constituencies. Also, there was no negotiation between the candidate and the elector;
As regards the allegations, the event in question took place well before the election, and the food and drink were provided by the Department of Social Security, not the 3 candidates. It was an annual event attended by voters from all over Mauritius, not just in the constituency. There was no evidence that any voter was corrupt.
Given the findings of fact of the Supreme Court of Mauritius, there was only one possible conclusion, namely that none of the respondents can be found guilty of unlawful dealing.
