Politicians suing the State: Milking the cow or genuine cases?

Can a politician sue the State? The public, especially internet users, have been going wild about political leaders seeking millions of rupees in terms of redress from the State. Being themselves agents of the State, and deriving sizeable incomes from their official capacity or former office, such claims tend to give rise to passionate debates within society. News on Sunday reports...

Like any other citizen of the country, a politician can sue the State regardless of whether he has held office or is still holding office. Whenever a person’s constitutional rights have been abused or wronged, or the person feels that such has been the case, he/she can seek redress from the country’s court system. This is not a new phenomena and it is not a form of syphoning money from public coffers, as ultimately, it would be upto the judiciary to decide whether the plaint warrants compensation and which quantum to allocate to the plaintiff.

Three front-line politicians are currently suing the State of Mauritius. Navin Ramgoolam, former Prime Minister and current leader of the Labour Party, is seeking Rs 225 million in damages following his arrest. Pravind Jugnauth, current Prime Minister and leader of the Mouvement Socialist Militant party, is suing the State for Rs 100 million. Shakeel Mohamed, a Member of Parliament from the Labour Party, is seeking redress for Rs 50 million. The State, it should be noted, is cited in their respective plaints as co-defendant alongside other persons representing or agents of the government, such as the Commissioner of Police and police officers.

Rs 375 million: that is the total amount claimed in terms of damages in these three plaints by politicians. For the population, this is unacceptable. One such comment on the www.defimedia.info website regarding the plaints of Navin Ramgoolam and Pravind Jugnauth by reader Rajen sums up public sentiment: “They are suing the State for several million rupees. Were they to win their court cases, it is the population who would have to foot the bill and pay them millions in damages and interests. This same population saw in these two persons their saviour who would have put an end to people’s sufferings. Let’s not forget, its is not the police who pays.”

The three claims

The former Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam lodged a complaint on Saturday, February 4, in the Supreme Court. He is claiming Rs 225 million of damages jointly to the state, the Commissioner of Police and Assistant Police Commissioner Heman Jangi. 

Navin Ramgoolam said that he was arrested for the first time by the CCID on February 6, 2015 following the search of his residences at Desforges Street, Port Louis and Riverwalk, which saw the seizure of his belongings, including his safes containing Rs 220 million in local and foreign currencies. The former head of government said that he was arrested several times later and that more than nine interim charges were laid against him before they were struck-out in court. The reason for him suing the State is that he trusts that there was a manoeuvre “aimed at destroying him politically”. His case will be called on March 9, 2017.

On the other hand, current Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth is suing the State for what he claims an ‘arbitrary’ arrest in the MITD case. In his complaint against the State and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Pregassen Vuddamalay, former head of the Central CID, the then member of the opposition (MSM), said he was “arbitrarily embarked” in a police vehicle and “illegally” arrested by police officers at his residence in Vacoas on 26 December 2012 in presence of his wife, children and family.

Pravind Jugnauth considers that his arrest caused extreme stress and anxiety to his wife and children. He believes that his constitutional rights have been violated by this arrest and detention. Pravind Juganuth has thus been claiming damages of Rs 100 million jointly to the State and the former head of the Central CID.

Moreover in 2016, the Labour Party member Shakeel Mohamed sued the State, Police Commissioner Mario Nobin and Assistant Police Commissioner Heman Jangi for damages of Rs 50 million in regards to his arrest in connection with the reopening of the investigation into the triple murder in Gorah Issac Street on the night of 25 to 26 October 1996. For Shakeel Mohamed, the police officers involved in his arrest and charge are liable of “serious misconduct”. He believes that his arrest was “arbitrary, illegal and abusive” and as such is seeking redress.

Not common citizens

According to Jack Bizlall, a politician benefits of the same rights as any citizen of Mauritius. “A politician has the right to file any police case if he/she feels it is necessary. At civil level, if the State has caused him economic harm, he has the right to sue the State. He can also sue the State if he trusts there was a lack or flaw at the administrative level. He can also sue the State if the State has not ensured his/her protection.”

Regarding the case of Pravind Jugnauth and Navin Ramgoolam suing the State, Jack Bizlall claims that in this case, they are not common citizens suing the State but people who have held or are holding public office being paid for by public funds which are ultimately the ownership of the population.

“However, these people are involving the State in their personal conflicts. As politicians, they fight with each other and involve the State. In this scenario, I believe it is unethical and immoral. The State cannot foot the bill for their political conflicts.” He highlighted that it is the population who, at the end of they day, will pay for the money claimed. Jack Bizlall questions: “Is it not a conscious strategy on the part of politicians to sue the State to enrich themselves?”

Equal rights under the law for politicians

The former Minister of Finance and Economic Development, Vasant Bunwaree, says that he trusts that every individual, politician or not, has duties and rights. “If a politician has strong reasons to believe that his rights have been wronged by the State, I don’t see why he should not be allowed to react and sue the State to ask for redress,” he adds.

Does the former Minister believe that it is not ethical and moral for a politician to sue the State especially given that they are paid for by public funds? “Remuneration and benefits are lawfully (e.g. pensions) due for services rendered or work done as per conditions well spelt out in some sort of contract. These cannot or should not act as a barrier to justice and human rights in the eventuality where the politician has a just cause to ask for redress.”

Vasant Bunwaree adds that “the State has no right to allow any of its citizens to be wronged or abused for any reason. The right of any citizen, including politicians, to sue the State to seek redress in a matter which is genuine is a sacred right and cannot be considered unethical or immoral so long as the victim makes no abuse of his right or powers.”

Barrister Penny Hack explains that Mauritius is a democracy where every citizen has the right to sue the State for good cause. The barrister trusts that “in as much as politicians are citizens, they also have the right to sue the State. Thereafter it is for the court to decide the outcome.” But is it ethical or moral for a politician, who is paid by the State and enjoy its lofty benefits, to sue that same entity? “Every person or citizen has the right to be remunerated for the work he does and receive a pension in accordance with law. Politicians wrongly or rightly have the same rights. The ethics and morals come into play where the politician in question is totally incompetent for the job,” he utters.

Regarding Pravind Jugnauth and Navin Ramgoolam cases, Penny Hack highlights once again that “suing the State is not immoral or unethical especially where you have good cause.” The barrister further explains that “once the matter has been entered, it is for the courts to determine the matter in all independence, regardless of whether one of the litigants is a politician or not.”

Erickson Mooneapillay

Should politicians be allowed to sue the state?

A politician although enjoying privileges that a common citizen may not enjoy is also a citizen of the Republic and as such enjoys the same rights as any other citizen. He or she is therefore perfectly entitled to demand reparation from the State when a tort has been committed by the State, its agents or “préposés”. In as much as nobody is above the law, it is equally right that nobody is under the law.

Is it ethical and moral, in the sense that the politician is remunerated by the State and benefits money from it, for example, though pensions?

The real issue is whether the State should allow its agents to cross the boundary of what is permissible in a democratic society. Those who cross the line are the real culprits when it comes to dilapidating tax payers’ money. It is for the citizens to ask for tougher sanctions against those who commit the torts and it is for the policy makers and decision takers to bring the proper remedies to avoid paying because of a few rotten tomatoes who do not understand where their boundaries start and end. For example, in criminal cases, too many arrests are done without reasonable evidence and people including politicians end up with provisional charges hanging over them. I blame the State not the one who has been unlawfully arrested.