23.4 C
Port Louis
Friday, April 19, 2024

Download The App:

Read in French


Yacoob Ramtoola Files Judicial Review Application Against Domah’s Report

Must Read

The action is directed against the former judge Bushan Domah and his two assessors, Satar Hajee Abdoula and Imrith Ramtohul. The Mauritian State, through the Attorney General, is named as co-defendant.

The Group Managing Partner of BDO & Co has sworn an affidavit, through the solicitor Komadhi Mardemootoo, in which he seeks the quashing of the report of the commission of inquiry on Britam. If that is not granted, he demands, at least, the removal of the remarks, references and conclusions relating to him, directly or by implication, from the report.

However, in Yacoob Ramtoola’s application, first and foremost, he asks the permission of the Supreme Court to proceed with his application for judicial review. To this end, he seeks an order directing the defendants to produce all records relating to the work of the Commission of Inquiry, including the annexes to the report, the transcripts of the proceedings and the notes of the Commissioners.

Yacoob Ramtoola seeks a first order of the Supreme Court to set aside the recommendations on criminal and civil liability as mentioned on page 347 of the report. He considers the recommendation to be irrational, illogical, illegal, procedurally irregular and in breach of the rules of natural justice.

Yacoob Ramtoola seeks a further order deleting several remarks, observations and comments as cited in his affidavit. He believes that they are “tainted by illegality and procedural irregularity“. He is also of the view that the commission had no jurisdiction to make them.

Yacoob Ramtoola is calling for the entire report to be annulled and expunged from the public record. In his view, the commission did not conduct a full, fair and impartial investigation on many issues. He, therefore, seeks an order stating that “the commission failed in its statutory obligations” and declaring that “references to him in the report, whether direct or implied, are unfair, unreasonable and unlawful“.

Finally, he wants an order stating that by associating him directly or implicitly with an alleged case of misconduct or wrongdoing is unlawful, unfair, unreasonable and highly prejudicial.

- Advertisement -spot_img

More Articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -spot_img

Latest Articles