A quoi peut-on s’attendre?…Des recours pour des révisions judiciaires pour se blanchir
Les deux membres du gouvernement démissionnaires, soit les avocats Sanjay Teeluckdharry et Roubina Jadoo Jaunboccus ont laissé entendre qu’ils vont contester les “findings” de la Commission Paul Lam Shamg Leen. Comment vont-ils procéder?
Les personnes visées devront déposer une application en Cour suprême pour un judicial review des sections leur concernant. On se souvient qu’après le rapport Rault, N. Gopee, identifié comme un trafiquant de drogue par les assesseurs, avait sollicité un judicial review.
Le 23 octobre 1987, les juges Rajsoomar Lallah, Robert Ahnee et A.G Pillay avaient écrit:
With regard to the order of certiorari, we indicated to counsel for the applicant while he was arguing the case that the findings of a Commission of Inquiry do not have the character of those of a Court of law or of a tribunal having similar jurisdictional powers and that those findings do not have any juridical effect. Where there is juridically nothing, there is nothing for a Court of Law to quash or strike out.
However, where a body such as a Commission of Inquiry is established in pursuance of a law, in the present case the Commission of Inquiry Act, it is bound to act in accordance with the obligations imposed by that law in the fulfilment of its mandate. Where such a body acts in breach of its statutory duties, the Supreme Court is vested with powers by the Constitution to pronounce on the matter and provide an appropriate remedy where there has been a breach. We have seen that section 13 of that Act required the Commission to abide by the law of evidence. In this connection, the Commission also had an obligation to act in accordance with the rules of natural justice. That obligation was particularly important, as the Commission well realized in its introduction to the Chapter on Drug Traffickers and which we have earlier highlighted, since its findings might otherwise be unjustly and unjustifiably prejudicial to the character and reputation of innocent persons. Such persons would not have the kind of remedy which they might have had against other persons, for example in damages, as members of a Commission of Inquiry are given statutory immunity against such processes (vide section 12(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act). This Court, however, has power to provide an appropriate remedy and thereby ensure that the rule of law prevails in this country. That remedy is, in our view and at any rate in the circumstances of the present case, the declaration that the applicant has sought in his alternative prayer.
C’est dans cette voie que les personnes visées vont probablement tabler leur défense.