IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of :- Mr. Abdool Raouf GULBUL, also known as Raouf GULBUL, a barrister, residing at Morcellement UBP, Mesnil, Phoenix. APPLICANT, versus 1. Mr. Paul LAM SHANG LEEN, former Judge of the Supreme Court of Mauritius, residing at Avenue Michael Leal, Curepipe Road, Curepipe. Mr. Samioullah LAUTHAN, former Minister of the then Social Security, National Solidarity, Senior Citizen Welfare and Reform Institutions, 2 Member of National Human Rights Commission, residing at Avenue Babonne, Soreze. Dr. Ravind Kumar DOMUN, Director Health Service, Ministry of Health and Quality of Life, service to be effected at his place of work at Dr A.G. Jeetoo Hospital, Volcy Pougnet Street, Port-Louis. RESPONDENTS In the presence of 4. The State of Mauritius, represented by the Honourable Attorney-General, of Attomey-General’s Office, 5" floor, Renganaden Seeneevassen Building, Jules Koenig Street, Port-Louis. 2. The Honourable Attorney-General, of Attorney-General’s Office, 5" floor, Renganaden Seeneevassen Building, Jules Koenig Street, Poyt-Louis. 3. Mr Koosiram Conhye, a Civil Servant, having his office at 13" Floor, Renganaden ‘Seeneevassen Building, Pope Hennessy Street, Port Louis. CO-RESPONDENTS |, Mr. Abdool Raouf GULBUL, also known as Raouf GULBUL, a barrister, residing at Morcellement UBP, Mesnil, Phoenix, holder of National Identity Card bearing number 6030758012431A make solemn affirmation as a Muslim and say as follows: - THE APPLICANT. 1. lam the Applicant in the present matter, 2. On the 28" of July 1983, | was called to the Bar of England and Wales at the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple. 3. On the 3 of October 1983, | was admitted to the Bar in Mauritius. = From October 1986 to December 1987, | served ag a District Magistrate,‘Save for the period October 1986 to December 1987, | have been in private practice at the Bar. 6. Onthe 13" of March 2015, | was appointed Chairman of the Gambling Regulatory Authority ("GRA"). On the 1* of September 2016, | was also appointed Chairman of the Law Reform Commission 7. On the 224 of November 2017, | resigned as Chairman of both institutions, 8. I was an unsuccessful candidate for constituency No 3, Port Louis East and Port Louis Maritime at the General Elections held on the 14" of December 2014 (the “General Elections’) ‘THE COMMISSION 9. On the 14" of July 2015, the President of the Republic of Mauritius issued a Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act (the “Act") appointing the Respondents as Commissioners to serve on a Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking in Mauritius (the “Commission"). Respondent No 1 chaired the Commission and Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 were his assessors. 10. The Co Respondent No 3 was the Secretary to the Commission. 11. The Commission had the following Terms of Reference to inquire into and report on all aspects of drugs trafficking in Mauritius, including — () the scale and extent of ilict drug trade end consumption in Mauritius and their economic and social consequences; (i) sources/points of origin/routes of illicit drugs; (ii) the channels of entry and distribution of drugs in Mauritius; (iv) the channels of entry and distribution of drugs in prison; (v) the availability of new types of drugs, including synthetic and designer drugs, in Mauritius; (vi) linkages between drug trafficking, money laundering, terrorist financing and other crimes; (Vi) the adequacy of existing legislation; (vi) the operational effectiveness of the various agencies involved in the fight against drug trafficking; (ix) the adequacy of the existing resources including human expertise technology and equipment, to detect and counter any attempt to introduce drug including designer and synthetic drugs in Mauritius; (®) the need for fostering linkages and coordination among various agencies and other local, regional and international entities dealing with drug related matters for better strategic direction; (x!) the effectiveness of drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes as well as harm reduction strategies, national prevention, education and drug repression strategies, with emphasis on youth; (xii) ‘the tracking of funds in order to identify illicit activities; (xiii) whether there is any evidence of poltical influence in the drug trafficking trade; and12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20, 21 (xiv) any other matter connected with or relevant or incidental to paragraphs (i) 10 (xi) above, and make recommendations as appropriate, including — {a) such action as is deemed necessary to fight the problem of importation, distribution and consumption of illicit drugs in the Republic of Mauritius, and (b) any statutory amendments as may be necessary to better safeguard the interests of the public at large. Section 13 of the Act provides:- “Any enactment relating to witnesses and evidence shall, subject to this Act, be applicable to all witnesses appearing, and to all evidence given before the Commission." I state that neither the activities of the GRA, to which | was appointed as Chairman on 13 March 2015, nor my professional activities as a barrister formed part of the terms of reference of the Commission. The Commission began its public hearings on the 4" of November 2015 and completed its proceedings on the 14” of March 2018. As soon as | became aware of media reports concerning the evidence of certain witnesses including one Miss Antisha Shamloll, and prior to being called by the Commission, | retained Counsel who requested, from the Commission on the 7" July 2017, certified copies of the transcript of proceedings in respect of those witnesses as well as of the documents produced. | annex as RG1 copy of a from Mr. Gavin Glover SC addressed to the Commission. The Commission neither acknowledged receipt nor replied to Counsel. By Summon to Witness dated the 24° of October 2017, copy of which is annexed and marked Document RG2, the Commission summoned me, as a witness, to appear before it on the 26" of October 2017 to give evidence/explanation regarding complaints of prisoners convicted for drug offences, acts constituting perverting the course of justice and the financing of political campaigns. The Summon informed me that | could be represented by Counsel. The Commission was, by then, already aware that Counsel on my behalf had written ever since 7® July 2017 (vide annex RG1 as per paragraph 15 above) for copies of transcripts of the evidence and copies of documents. | first appeared and deponed before the Commission under solemn affirmation as a Muslim on the 26" October 2017. I was not provided with any transcriots as requested by Counsel. Atthat very first hearing, the Chairperson was hostile towards me and threatened me in the following terms: “You'll get down in a pit’. This was reported in the press and | attach copy of a press report of the proceedings of the 26" October 2017 (copy of Le Defi Quotidien of 27" October 2017 annexed and marked as RG 3) At the end of my testimony on the same day, the Chairperson told me that: “It's only the tip of the iceberg”. (vide annex RG3 as per paragraph 20 above)22, 23. 24, 25. 26. 27. also deponed before the Commission on 30" October 2017, 6" November 2017 and 9" November 2017. At no point in time did the Commission provide me with transcripts of the evidence given by witnesses whether called before or after me. On the four occasions on which | have appeared before the Commission, | insisted that: (}) the Commission informs me of the identity of the persons who have levelled allegations against me; ) that I be provided with certified copies of their statements; (ill) that all documents to which the Commission was refering to when questioning me be made available; (iv) all those persons who had given adverse evidence against me be tendered for cross-examination either in public or in camera. My requests were flatly refused by the Commission. | understand that the following persons: Samad Golamaully, Ashley Hurranghee, Sabir Gangaparsad, Salim Mohamed (the driver of Samad Golarnaully), Khalil Ramoly, Dade Azaree, Sada Curpen and Riaz Gulbul, amongst others, were heard by the Commission after my last testimony of the 9* November 2017 and gave evidence which the Commission, it seems, has used to make findings against me. On 21* November 2017, | again retained the services of Counsel namely, Mr. R. Chetty SC, who wrote to the Commission in order to request for copies of transcripts of the evidence given by all those witnesses who had given evidence against me as well as certified copies of all documents allegedly adverse to me in order that | might have the opportunity to take cognizance of same and exercise my right to cross-examine them in respect of matters adverse to me. | attach copy of the letter of Mr. Chetty SC marked RG 4. By letter dated 24" November 2017 bearing reference COVRFVSUM/1/A V3, in breach of the rules of natural justice and faimess, the Commission refused the request of Counsel. It refused to provide the transcript of proceedings and stated that: “cross-examining witnesses does not arise for the purposes of the present Commission”. | state that the Commission was wrong as a matter of law and is bound by the law of evidence and the principles of faimess and natural justice. A copy of the said letter dated 24.11.2017 from the Commission is herewith annexed and marked RG5.28. ‘The Commission asked me to provide explanations on several matters, the salient ones being:~ i) the compiaint made by Mr Bottesoie in 2003 and the complaint made by Mrs Parweeza Jeeva in 2010, against me as Barrister, ii) cases in which | had appeared as counsel and where according to the Commission | had committed a breach of the Code of Ethics for Barristers. ‘The Commission referred, in particular, to the cases of Mr Veeren Peroumal, Mrs Parweeza Jeeva, Mr Agathe and Mr Salva; ii) the meeting | had in St Pierre on the 24" of November 2014 to allegedly collect a sum of Rs 9.7 million; iv) a flat allegedly belonging to my daughter in Tottenham Court Road, London, England; v) a hotel that | allegedly own off Tottenham Court Road, London, England; vi) immovable properties that | allegedly own at Bagatelle, Moka, at Le Bocage, Moka and Floreal; vii) immovable properties that | allegedly own in the names of other persons; and vill) calls and text messages from Colombia, Comoros Island and Mayotte. THE REPORT 29, 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35, ‘On the 26" of July 2018, the Report of the Commission (the “Report") was submitted to the acting President. A copy of the Report is annexed and marked Document RG 6. On the 27" of July 2018, Cabinet took note of the Report which was made publicly available and it received extensive coverage in the media. ‘Chapter 19 of the Report is entitled ‘The Honourable Profession-Barristers' from pages 218 to 238 which, | understand, seeks to convey an element of sarcasm ‘on the part of the Commissioners. ‘Subheading 1 of Part 19.5.4 entitled ‘specific cases’, from pages 222 to 227 of the Report, sets out the findings of the Commission concerning me. | am introduced by the Commissioners in the following terms: “The one topping the hit parade is no more than the politician cum barrister, Mr Raouf Gulbul, former magistrate, who was heard during four sessions.” The Commission then refers to the testimony of Ms. Shamioll in respect of a ‘troubling fact’ namely, that | would have used a black phone which would be the reason that ‘he could not be traced.” | was never examined by the Commission as to the use of a ‘black phone’ as described by the Commission at paragraph 3.26 of the Report and did not have the benefit of the transcript relating to the testimony of Ms. Shamioll conceming any black phone. | also did not haye the opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Shamioll on this evidence.36. 37, The Commission found, in summary, that := i) (i (ii) (iv) (w) (vi) (il) (vii) (ix) (x) &i) oxi) xii) (xiv) (xv) wi) | have been using a ‘black phone’ to communicate with my clients detained at the Central Prison, Beau Bassin (the “Prison’) Ihave used the mobile phone of my wife during the electoral campaign for the General Elections; Ihave committed numerous offences of subordination (sic, suboration) of witnesses; Thave taken drug money as my fees; Ihave acted in conflict of interest in the exercise of my duty as barrister; Ihave received important sums of money from drug traffickers to finance my electoral campaign for the General Elections; Thave used former drug offenders as my henchmen during my electoral campaign for the General Elections; Ihave suborned witnesses who deponed before the Commission; Ihave instructed junior Counsel to transfer Rs 5000 to the account of Mr Faizal Hussain, an Indian national convicted for drug trafficking; used my position as Chairman of the Gambling Regulatory Authority to allow money laundering by accomplices of drug traffickers in casinos, gaming houses and horse racing; I'did not account for fees paid in cash with the Mauritius Revenue Authority. | converted such alleged unaccounted fees in foreign exchange for pounds sterling at two shops, Bambino and Shayeem, which are not licensed foreign exchange dealers and no receipts were delivered; Having regard to my income and that of my wife, the immoveable properties that we own cannot be explained and/or justified. | acquired property for my daughter in the United Kingdom under allegedly a préte nom. Jam in a partnership with a Mauritian, settled in London, in a hotel in Tottenham Court Road, a building known as ‘Center Point’; and Ihave accepted cash above the authorized amount. The Commission found that, if these facts are proved, after enquiry, to be exact, | might have committed numerous offences such as subordination (sic, subornation) of witnesses, laundering money, and accepting cash above the authorized amount. 38. The Commission recommended that an in-depth inquiry and audit trail be carried out into my affairs and the relevant authorities are to take whatever appropriate action they may deem fit. The present application 39. At the outset, | state that the provisions of Section 13 of the Act require that the 40. law of evidence shall apply to proceedings before the Commission and it is a cardinal principle of law that no evidence can be used against a person unless he has been confronted with it and given the opportunity of contesting it, | was deprived of this opportunity by the Com of the Act and the rules of natural justice. jioners who elected to flout section 13 | am therefore, in the present application, praying for leave to apply for Judicial Review challenging the fin: js of the Commission against me as biased, perverse, ultra vires, in breach of the rules of procedural faimess, more particularly, of the rules of natural justice and contrary to Section 13 of the Act and expunging the adverse findings andwamments made conceming me.Mt. 42. 43. 44, 45. 47. 48. 49, 50. In addition, the Commission refused to provide me with transoriots of the evidence of witnesses called prior to my being called to depone and denying me the ability to properly challenge the evidence adverse to my interests, the moreso that part of the testimony of one Miss Antisha Shamloll, which was taken in camera. The witnesses called prior to my testimony were Jacharee Bottesoie, Mrs Parwiza Jeeva and her relatives namely, Goolam Jeeva, Anwar Jeeva, Altaf Jeeva, Siddick Islam, Naserah Vavrah, Peroumal Veeren and Antisha Shamioll In breach of natural justice and rules of faimess, the Commission failed to allow me to challenge and test any information which was detrimental to me, yet, drew adverse findings from such information in breach of the law. ‘The Commission failed to pay attention to relevant evidence | had adduced before it, including documents and exhibits; instead, the Commission chose to rely on mudslinging allegations made by persons who had an axe to grind against me without cautiously weighing such allegations and without such allegations being tested through the process of cross-examination. ‘The Commission also refused to accept some of the documents that | wished to produce for its consideration. FINDINGS THAT | HAVE USED A ‘BLACK PHONE’ AND THE MOBILE PHONE OF MY WIFE DURING THE ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN ARE UNREASONABLE, PERVERSE IN BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IN BREACH OF THE RULES OF FAIRNESS. At the outset, the Commissioners expressed their bewilderment as to the fact that its “Investigating team was unable to seoure from the itemized bill from the telephony service providers any exchange of telecommunication Counsel and his clients in prison, the more so that he had stopped visiting his clients in jail and the Commission wonders how he obtains instruction from detainees to be able to defend them in Court" Such @ scathing statement bearing no relevance specifically to clients having anything to do with drug trafficking is scornful of Counsel, smacks of patent bias and is perverse. | state that there was no basis whatsoever for the Commission to have found as a fact that | had been as a barrister using a black phone in order to communicate with detainees in prison. This is a fabrication concocted in order to harm me. When on the 9" of November 2017, | deponed before the Commission. | was questioned about text messages allegedly received on mobile phone number 59333958. | told the Commission that | am the exclusive user of that number but the Chairman said that it was my wife who had been using this number. | again told the Chairperson that | am the person using it and he sarcastically wamed me that | should not lie.51. 52. 53. 54, 55. 56. 57. 58, 59, 60. 61 62. The Commission put to me that it had information and documents to the effect that this telephone number received several text messages from Colombia, Comoros Islands and Mayotte during the years 2015 and 2016 on that mobile phone number. | state that the mobile phone bearing phone number 59333958 was purchased by my wife, in 2006, for our daughter. The service provider is Emtel Limited. When our daughter left Mauritius in 2009 for further studies in England, | took over the phone and started using same. The reference by the Commission to Colombia, a country being infamous for its drug cartels, was a deliberate and wicked association with the targeted aim of sullying my reputation and was perverse. On the 14" of November 2017, I wrote to the Commission to protest against such reckless allegations. A copy of my letter dated the 14" of November 2017 is annexed and marked Document RG7. ‘The questions pertaining to mobile phone number 59333958 having allegedly received incoming text messages from Colombia was extensively reported in the media. Copies of extracts of Le Mauricien dated the 9", 10" and 27" of November 2017, respectively are annexed and marked RG8 and RG9 and RG10. | also annex copies of press reports of Le Defi Quotidien of 10.11.2017 and L’express of 10.11.2017 and marked RG11 and RG 12, respectively, ‘The Commi n utterly failed to ascertain that : (2) Colombia uses a 12 digit numbering pian for mobile phone numbers whereas Mauritius uses an 8 digit numbering plan — a matter which could easily have been ascertained, had thi ue been treated with a modicum of seriousness and faimess consistent with the standards required of a Commission of Inquiry; and (b) there were only two numbers with more than 8 digits on mobile phone number 59333958 for the period January 2015 to November 2017. The first one was 5768617473417070 which corresponds to a WhatsApp message. . The second one was 57696E57697468557464 which corresponds to a text message from the Manchester United football club application. ‘The Commission in utter bad faith and recklessly put it to me that the "operator” has confirmed to the Commission that there are several calls and text messages ‘exchanged between Colombia and mobile phone bearing number 59333958. This is patently false. At the sitting of the 9° of November 2017, the Commission again in utter bad faith and recklessly put it to me that Emte! Limited has confirmed to the Commission that there were text messages between Colombia and mobile phone bearing number 59333958, Again, this is patently false, SMITE z63, 64, 65. 66, 67. 68. 69. 70. m1. 72. 73. 74, 75. 76. The Commission also put it to me that Emtel Limited has confirmed that there was communication between mobile phone 59333958 and (1) Mr Veeren Peroumal who was in Prison; and (2) Mayotte. | gave the SIM card of mobile phone 69333958 to the Commission for examination. Copy of letter from the Commisson dated 10.11.2017 is herewith annexed and marked Document RG13. My wife, under whose name that particular mobile phone number is registered, wrote to the mobile operator, Emtel Limited, to inquire whether this mobile phone had ever been used during the period January 2015 to November 2017 for text messages to and from Colombia. Emtel Limited certified that this mobile phone has never been put fo such use. Copies of my wife's letters to Emtel Limited and the answer from Emte! Limited are annexed and marked Documents RG 14, RG 15 and RG16. In a letter | addressed to the Commissioners on 14" November 2017, | have annexed the reply from Emtel marked RG17 The Report is eloquently silent on this point. Since 2014, | have scaled down my criminal practice conceming drug offences as shown in the comparative table herewith annexed and marked RG17| However, the Commission finds that | have been using a ‘black phone’ to communicate with my clients in prison. The Commission relies on the testimony of Miss Antishe Shamloll for this finding. A simple verification with the regulator, namely the Information and Communication Telecommunication Authority, would have revealed that it is not Possible for a mobile phone to operate in Mauritius outside the dedicated network system. The finding of the Commission that | used a cryptic ‘black phone’ is baseless, unreasonable and perverse. The Commission never put it to me that I have been using my wife’s mobile phone during the electoral campaign At all times, my wife uses a personal mobile phone number which is allocated to her by the Judiciary. From 6" December 2014 to 22"¢ December 2014, she had travelled to England and that mobile phone was with her. | gave that mobile phone number to the Commission. | state that | have never used my wife's personal mobile phone number, described above, either during the electoral campaign or at any time whatsoever. Yet, at page 226 under the subheading: “Et Tu Brute!” the Commission laconically finds that: “The mobile phone of his wife has also been used during the electoral campaign.” The finding of the Commission that | have used my wife's mobile phone during the electoral campaign is unreasonable, perverse, in breach of natural justice and in breach of the rules of faimess. IIIT One| bias71. 78. 79. 80. 81 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. FINDING OF SUBORDINATION (sic, SUBORNATION) OF WITNESSES IS UNREASONABLE AND PERVERSE. ‘The Commission makes a finding that, after a perfunctory enquiry, presumably by the Police, into the allegations of Mr Bottesoie to the effect that | had tried to influence him to lie in Court and not to implicate Mr Velvindron in the case of The State v Velvindron (2003 SCJ 319], the then Director of Public Prosecutions advised no further action in the matter, The Commission further finds that Mrs Parweeza Jeeva who was arrested for drug trafficking did not retain my services and did not pay my fees but that it was Mr Veeren Peroumal who paid my fees in the sum of Rs 468 000 for me to visit Mrs Parweeza Jeeva at the ADSU office to tell her not to implicate Mr Veeren Peroumal. ‘The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has investigated the cases of Mr Bottesoie and Mrs Parweeza Jeeva. Again, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised no further action in both matters. ‘The finding of the Commission that | have suborned witnesses Mr Bottesoie and Mrs Parweeza Jeeva is, therefore, unreasonable, unwarranted and perverse. FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TAKEN DRUG MONEY AS FEES IS UNREASONABLE AND PERVERSE ‘The Commission makes a first sweeping statement that Mr Siddick Islam “spent some Rs 25 million which he had earned from dealing in drugs in barristers’ fees, many of whom he never retained their services but then came to him nevertheless.” The Commission makes a second sweeping statement that “Mrs Vavra who also deposed and confirmed that this amount (Rs 25 million) was paid to lawyers. She was also very bitter against Mr Gulbul accusing him of having extorted money from her husband and for his defence and contrary to their expectations, Mr Gulbul, along with his panel of lawyers, had failed to act in his interest and represent him as was expected.” | was not communicated the relevant transcripts of the evidence of Mr Isiam and Mrs Vavra nor was | given the opportunity to challenge their statements in cross- examination Late Mr Guy Ollivry QC, Miss Yanilla Moonshiram and myself appeared for Mr Siddick Islam before the Special Criminal Session of the Supreme Court in the case of The State v Siddick Islam. A copy of the judgment in that case (2007 SCJ 158) is annexed and marked Document RG 18. Late Mr Guy Ollivry, QC, Mr Yousuf Mohamed, SC, Mr Sanjay Bhuckory, SC together with me constituted the panel of barristers appearing for Mr Siddick Islam before the Court of Criminal Appeal. A copy of the Judgment: S. Islam v The State 2008 SCJ 331 is annexed and marked Document RG 19. The Commission made a third sweeping statement that “Notorious drug trafficker Mr Veeren Peroumal bragged that he became a drug trafficker in the prison because of the high fees claimed by counsel, which he paid with drug money.” __ She87. In reliance on these statements and without more the Commission, unreasonably and perversely finds that my fees have been paid with drug money. FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ACTED IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS UNREASONABLE AND PERVERSE. 88. The Commission found that | acted in conflict of interest when | appeared for Mrs Parweeza Jeeva “who had implicated Mr Veeren Peroumal in a drug transaction, he (the Applicant) was also the counsel for Mr Veeren Perumal.” 89, The Commission found that | have acted in conflict of interest "in another case involving Mr Agathe and Mr Salva in a case of money laundering which has a rug transaction background.” 90. In March 2002, | appeared as Counsel for Mr Veeren Peroumal before the Intermediate Court for an offence under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Mr Veeren Peroumal was convicted and appealed against his conviction. 91. Late Mr Guy Ollivry QC and | appeared for Mr Veeren Peroumal in the appeal proceedings. A copy of the judgment (Peroumal Veeren v The State 2006 SCJ 153) is annexed and marked Document RG 20. 92. In August 2005, | assisted Mrs Parweeza Jeeva during her statements to the police as regards a police inquiry concerning drug offences and money laundering offences. The provisional information bearing number 6757/2005 — PL Il DIV «in the case against Jeeva, is annexed marked as Document RG 21, 93. The police inquiry concerning Mrs Parweeza Jeeva and the court case concerning Mr Veeren Peroumal have nothing in common and are unrelated. 94, There cannot, therefore, be any conflict of interest of any kind in my appearing and/or assisting in these two matters. 95. On the 22" of May 2017, | appeared for Mr Salva before the Intermediate Court in @ case bearing cause number 729/2016. Mr Salva was charged with offences which allegedly took place on the 15%, 16 and 17 of June 2011. 96. The trial was fixed to the 10" of October 2017 and was postponed to the 20" of February 2018. Mr Salva was charged with 2 counts of acting in breach of limitation of payment in cash (counts 1 and 2), one count of bearing offensive weapon (count 3), and one count of assault with premeditation (count 4). 97. On the 20" of February 2018, | withdrew from the case. 98. A copy of the Information lodged against Mr Salva is annexed and marked Document RG22. 99. On the 12" of September 2016, | appeared for Mr Agathe before the Supreme Court in an application for review to admit Mr Agathe on bail. The underlying offence was money laundering which had allegedly taken place on the 3” of October 2016. A copy of the brief before the Supreme Court is annexed and xd Document RG23. 1100. The cases of Mr Salva and Mr Agathe are unconnected. | have produced Documents RG22 and 23 to the Commission. 101. The finding by the Commission that | have acted in conflict of interestis, therefore, unreasonable and perverse. FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED IMPORTANT SUMS OF MONEY FROM DRUG TRAFFICKERS TO FINANCE HIS ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN FOR THE GENERAL ELECTIONS IS UNREASONBALE AND PERVERSE, 102. The Commission finds that, during my political campaign, | came out from @ house in St Pierre with a big black bag full of money in cash. 103, The identity of the person who allegedly gave me the big black bag full of cash is unknown, 104. The Commission finds that the big black bag full of cash was given to me by a drug trafficker to finance my electoral campaign. 105. The Commission accepted, without more, the evidence of by Miss Antisha Shamiloll that “Mr Sada Curpen, a drug trafficker in the eyes of the ADSU" contributed financially to my electoral campaign. 106. During his own deposition before the Commission, Mr Sada Curpen has denied having financed my electoral campaign. 107. The Commission noted that | and my team “of some 10 people would often eat at Gloria Food, belonging to Mr Azaree, for free during the electoral campaign”. The ion found that Mr Azaree is presently on remand in a serious case of importation of heroin”. 108. It is public knowledge that Mr Azaree is a political agent of another political party which was an opponent of my party at the General Elections. 109. During the electoral campaign, only on one occasion, myself and four of my supporters ate at the fast food owned by Mr Azaree. 110. The Commission found that Mr Khalil Ramoly, owner of spare parts garage “provided several cars to Mr Gulbul during the campaign.” 111. It is unknown whether Mr Khalil Ramoly is a drug trafficker or has ever been arrested and or convicted in relation with a drug related offence. 112. | have appeared as Counsel for Mr Khalil Ramoly in a civil matter. 113. | have never used any car belonging to Mr Khalil Ramoly. Nor has Mr Khalil Ramoly provided me with any cars at any point in time, 114. | verily believe that the Commission never questioned Mr Khalil Ramoly on this issue. SR 7118. 116. 4117, 118, 119, 120. 121 122, 123, 124, 128, 126. 127. The finding by the Commission that | have received important sums of money from drug traffickers to finance my electoral campaign for the General Elections is, therefore, unreasonable and perverse. FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS USED FORMER DRUG OFFENDERS AS HIS HENCHMEN DURING THE ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN FOR THE GENERAL ELECTIONS IS UNREASONABLE AND PERVERSE. The Commission found that Mr Auguste, commonly known to ADSU as “Gros Patrick’ was ‘evolving around’ (sic) me during the electoral campaign. The Commission relied on the testimony of Mr Riaz Gulbul that: (a) Mr Auguste was a bouncer and my right hand man; and (b) “Mr Sada Curpen was a regular visitor to his employers’ (presumably, me) office" and concluded that the Applicant used former drug offenders during his electoral campaign. Mr Riaz Gulbul is my nephew and was employed by me as Clerk from 1999 to 2008 and then from January 2013 to August 2013, In August 2013, Mr Riaz Gulbul was dismissed from employment as he had misappropriated money from my practice. ‘The matter was reported to the Police. Mr Riaz Gulbul was prosecuted and convicted. Since August 2013 | have not been on speaking terms with Mr Riaz Gulbul and he has a grudge against me. Mr Patrick Auguste is a client of mine. | have appeared for him in an ongoing Preliminary Enquiry before the District Court of Rose Hill. The matter has now been referred to the Assizes. Mr Sada Curpen has never accompanied me during the electoral campaign for the 2014 General elections. The finding by the Commission that | have used former drug offenders as my henchmen during the electoral campaign for the General Elections is clearly unreasonable and perverse. FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUBORNED WITNESSES WHO DEPONED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ‘The Commission found that, at e meeting with Messrs Samad Golamaully and Mr Ashley Hurranghee in Ebéne, | effected body search on Messrs Samad Golamaully and Ashley Hurranghee before asking them to lie before the Commission on matters concerning me. ‘The Commission also found that Mr Riaz Gulbul ‘was offered Rs 300 000 by his aunt and uncle, the sister and brother of Mr Gulbul (the Applicant), not to depose before the Commission and if he did, to do so in favour of Mr Raouf Gulbul”. The Commission never questioned my sister and my brother as regards the allegation that they offered Rs 300 000 to Mr Riaz Gulbul so that he does not depone before the Commission and if dogs so, to depone in my favour.128, 129, 130. 131, 132. 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, ‘The finding by the Commission that | have suborned witnesses who deponed before the Commission is, therefore, unreasonable and perverse. FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT INSTRUCTED JUNIOR COUNSEL TO PUT Rs 5000 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MR FAIZAL HUSSAIN AN INDIAN NATIONAL CONVICTED FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING IS UNREASONBALE AND PERVERSE. The Commission found that | instructed Miss Antisha Shamioll to ‘replenish’ the bank account of ‘convicted drug trafficker, Mr Faizal Hussain, an Indian National’, which she did. Mr Faizal Hussain was interviewed, from India, on Radio Plus in July 2017 and denied that | have given money to Miss Antisha Shamloll to be credited to his account, | annex the extract of le Defi Plus of 8 to 14 July 2017 marked as document RG 24, The finding by the Commission that I have instructed Miss Antisha Shamioll to ‘put’ Rs 5,000 in the bank account of Mr Faizal Hussain an ‘Indian National convicted for drug trafficking is clearly unreasonable and perverse. FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT USED HIS POSITION AS CHAIRMAN OF THE GAMBLING REGULATORY AUTHORITY TQ ALLOW MONEY LAUNDERING BY ACCOMPLICES OF DRUG TRAFFICKERS IN CASINOS, GAMING HOUSES AND HORSE RACING IS UNREASONABLE, PERVERSE, ULTRA VIRES AND ILLEGAL. The Commission found that my position as Chairman of the Gambling Regulatory Authority (“GRA”) controlling casinos, gaming houses and horse racing is a matter for concem as these institutions are temples for money laundering by accomplices of the drug traffickers. The Commission found that as Chairman of the Gambling Regulatory Authority, | “did nothing fo prevent the money laundering in casinos, gambling houses and the race course. In not taking any action, the Commission wonders whether he (the Applicant) was condoning money laundering by drug traffickers.” ‘The Commission also relies on a case in which | allegedly appeared for Mr Sada Curpen for a money laundering offence where the defence of Mr Sada Curpen was that those monies are winnings at the races and casinos and on the Parry report to sweepingly conclude that | facilitated money laundering. | appeared for Mr Sada Curpen in a case before the Intermediate Court bearing cause number 1145/12 where the offence is one of conspiracy to cause harm to another person. | hereby annex the information wherein Mr. Sada Curpen was prosecuted before the Intermediate Court marked RG25. | am given to understand that Mr Sada Curpen has another case for money laundering pending before the Intermediate Court and | am not Counsel in that case, It bears cause number 242/2017. A copy of the Information is annexed. \d marked as document RG26. On the 24" of September 2014, the Commigsion of Inquiry for Racing known as the ‘Parry Commission’ was set up.138. In March 2015, the Parry Commission submitted its Report to the then President of the Republic. | annex, in this respect, the Parry Report marked as document Document RG 2: 139, The finding by the Commission that | have used my position as Chairman of the Gambling Regulatory Authority to allow money laundering by accomplices of drug traffickers in casinos, gaming houses and horse racing is, in the circumstances, unreasonable, perverse, ultra vires and illegal. 140. In any event the Commission exceeded its powers under the Terms of Reference in making adverse findings against me in my capacity as Chairman of the Gambling Regulatory Authority and incidentally in my capacity as barrister, thus acting ultra vires and illegally. 141, The Commission, acting in excess of its powers and illegally, questioned me as Chairman of the Gambling Regulatory Authority about the regulatory actions undertaken on matters for which | cannot be accountable for, in law and on the facts. 142. The Chairman questioned me on Messrs Michel Lee Shim and Paul Foo Yune. Mr Paul Foo Kune is one of the directors of ‘Play On Line Ltd’, a licensee of the GRA. FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FEES PAID IN ‘CASH TO THE MAURITIUS REVENUE AUTHORITY AND HAS EXCHANGED ‘SUCH UNACCOUNTED FEES IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE IS UNREASONABLE AND PERVERSE, 143. The Commission found that | do not account for fees paid in cash with the Mauritius Revenue Authority. 144, The Commission also found that Mr Riaz Gulbul would exchange such unaccounted fees at "two shops Bambino and Shayeem one near the bus terminal and the other Caudan Passerelle. In both these shops no receipts were ever delivered. More especially when Mr Gulbul (the Applicant) and his spouse have to travel, Mr Riaz had to call at those money changers to get the required foreign currencies.” 148. The Commission found that, on average, | would cause to be exchanged roughly 120 000 to 140 000 Mauritian Rupees for the equivalent of 3 000 pounds sterling. 146. The Commission never questioned the persons responsible in law for Bambino and Shayeem shops. 147. The false version of Mr Riaz Gulbul that he would exchange money for me at Bambino and Shayeem shops was never put to me by the Commission. 148. On the 24! of January 2018, the Mauritius Revenue Authority notified me that it was reassessing my income tax for income years 2015/16 to 2017/18. Copy of the said notification from MRA is annexed and marked RG28.149. There was no assessment for VAT. | was only assessed for the business expenses that | had deducted. 150. Following the reassessment of my income by the Mauritius Revenue Authority. 1 was made to pay the following additional amounts to the Mauritius Revenue Authority: for year 2015: Rs 26 689, for year 2015/16: Rs15 639, for year 2016/17: Rs 35 737 and for year 2017/18: Rs 25 596. These sums represent the amount of additional tax | should pay because, solely, of an over-claim in my business expenses for the relevant years of assessment. A copy of the letter dated 28.06.2018 from the MRA concerning the assessment is annexed as DOCUMENT RG29. 151. The receipt of payment following the reassessment is also annexed and marked as Document RG30. 162. The finding by the Commission that | have not accounted for fees paid in cash with the Mauritius Revenue Authority and that | have exchanged such unaccounted fees in foreign exchange, more particularly Great Britain Pounds, is unreasoneble and perverse FINDINGS THAT (A) HAVING REGARD TO THE APPLICANT'S INCOME AND THAT OF HIS WIFE THE IMMOVEABLE PROPERTIES THAT THEY OWN CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AND OR JUSTIFIED, (B) THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ACQUIRED PROPERTY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM FOR THE APPLICANT'S DAUGHTER UNDER POSSIBLY A PRETE NOM AND (C) THE APPLICANT IS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH A_MAURITIAN ESTABLISHED IN LONDON IN A HOTEL IN TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD IN A BUILDING KNOWN AS ‘CENTER POINT’ ARE UNREASONABLE AND PERVERSE. 183. | do not own any property in England. Nor do | own any property under a préte nom. 154. My wife does not own any property in England. 185. Neither my wife nor | have any bank account in England. 156. | do not have any interest in any hotel in London 157. The Commission acted recklessly and perversely in making a finding that | have interest in a hotel at Tottenham Court Road, London in a building known as ‘Center Point’, 158. The Commission has fabulated my alleged interest in ‘Center Point.’,159. The truth about Center Point is set out below. (Centre Point is @ 33-storey building in Central London, built between 1963 and 1966 by Wimpey Construction. It was one of the first skyscrapers in London and as of 2009, it was London's joint 27" tallest building; (ii) Over the years, Centre Point has been owned by different corporate entities; (li) ‘The present owner of Centre Point is Aimacantar, a property investment and development company which has a unique portfolio of properties including some of the most iconic architectural landmarks within Central London. Its prime buildings include Marble Arch Place, CAA House, One and Two Southbank Place, Lyons Piace and 125 Shaflesbury Avenue. (iv) Almacantar operates in a highly regulated property market within Central London, 160. The finding of the Commission that | have any interest in ‘Center Point’ is simply delusional. 161. | annex the relevant documents for Almacantar and Centre Point, respectively marked as Documents RG 31 to RG31 (ii). 162, | set out in the table annexed the list of properties my wife and | acquired and sold from 1989 to 28" of February 2018. The said table disclosed all immovable transactions carried out by my wife and | during the said period; a copy of the said table is annexed and marked Document RG32. 163. The Commission requested from me for value added tax receipts for only drug offence related cases that | appeared in and assisted. | communicated to the Respondents all my VAT receipts in respect of clients charged with drug ‘offences for the period 24/09/2013 to 26/9/2017 in a letter | addressed to them on the 23.11.2017, a copy of which is annexed and marked Document RG32()). | have also produced, as requested by the Commission, document RG2 referred to in paragraph 16 above, all my VAT returns for the years 2005 te 2017 to the MRA. 164. My practice covers other types of crime related offences and civil types of cases as well. 165. The Commission, at page 226 of the Report under item (xi) heading BANK ACCOUNTS, TAX AND VAT RETURNS DECLARED INCOME V/S ASSETS makes a finding in the third paragraph as follows: “in 1994, some Rs 18,895,000 excluding registration fees and other costs were disbursed for the purchase of several properties with loan amounting to Rs 5.6m”. 166. | state that this is completely incorrect because it is in the year 2014 and not 1994 that my wife and | purchased two properties and not ‘several’ properties.167. First, @ plot of land was purchased at Bagatelle for a purchase price of Rs 10,895,000 and the following charges were incurred: (I) registration fees and other expenses, Rs 628,364:and (li) fees paid to ENLProperty Ltd, Rs 125,293, 168. The total sum paid was Rs 11,648,657 and was financed both by wife and myself, ‘The said transaction was settled by cheques from our respective accounts. 169. Secondly, a plot of land was bought at Highlands for a purchase price of Rs 8,000,000 and registration fees and related expenses amounting to Rs 404,575 were incurred. 170. The total sum paid was Rs 8,404,575. The payment for the said purchase was from our respective bank accounts. 171. The total amount for both properties was Rs 20,053,232 and was paid by my wife and myself from our savings and a housing loan for Rs 5,600,000. 172. The Commission has failed to consider the document of ‘statements of assets and liabilities’ of myself and that of my wife which | produced 173. The finding by the Commission that, having regard to my income and that of my wife, the immoveable properties we own cannot be explained and/or justified is, in the circumstances, unreasonable and perverse. 174. The finding by the Commission that | have acquired property for my daughter in the United Kingdom under possibly a préte nom is unreasonable and perverse. 175. The finding by the Commission that | am in partnership with a Mauritian settled in London in a hotel in Tottenham Court Road in a building known as ‘Center Point’ is unreasonable and perverse. FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ACCEPTED CASH ABOVE THE AUTHORISED AMOUNT IS UNREASONABLE AND PERVERSE. 178. The Commission found that | have accepted cash above the authorized amount. 177. In the light of my tax retums and my value added tax returns, which were produced to the Commission, this finding by the Commission is unreasonable and perverse. FAILURE BY THE COMMISSION TO OBSERVE THE LAW 178. At page 221 of the Report, the Commission states that, on being requested to communicate documents as regards certain allegations levelled against them, a few of the barristers "simply dumped a load full of paled out, nay intelligible photocopies of receipts, vat returns, irrelevant documents, whole sets of proceedings from crug cases and so on, before the Commission. A quick perusal of those documents was sufficient to convince the Commission of their irrelevance and not to waste any of its precious time goir they were not the information sought.”179. | am one of the barristers included in the above written statement. 180. | state that | submitted clear and detailed accounts and explanations to the ‘Commission which, in bad faith, it brushed aside, 181, | am advised that, to the extent that the Commissioners decided to take up and consider mere allegations against me as such and make specific findings ad ‘hominem on my conduct, a particular duty arose to comply with the terms of section 13 of the Act which requires the Commission to act in accordance with the law of evidence and observe the rules of natural justice. 182. | am further advised that, to the extent that the Commission conducted the examination of witnesses both in public and in camera, the Commission had the duty to ensure that | was present and given the Opportunity to confront and cross- examine witnesses in respect of such evidence. PRAYER 183. The following findings at sub-heading 1 at Pages 222 to 227 of the Report are judicially reviewable by the Supreme Court of Mauritius, namely:- (i) that | have used a ‘black phone’ to communicate with my clients detained at the Prison and that | have used my wife's phone during the electoral campaign for the 2014 General Elections; (i) that | have committed numerous offences of ‘subordination’ of witnesses; (ii) that | have taken drug money as my fees; (iv) that | have acted in conflict of interest in the exercise of my duty as barrister; (v) that | have received important sums of money from drug traffickers to finance my electoral campaign for the General Elections; (vi) _ that | have used former drug offenders as my henchmen during my electoral campaign for the General Elections; (vii) that | have ‘subordinated’ witnesses who deponed before the Commission; (ili) that | have instructed junior Counsel to ‘put’ Rs § 000 in the account of Mr Faizal Hussain, an Indian ‘National’ convicted for drug trafficking; (x) that | have used my position as Chairman of the Gambling Regulatory Authority to allow money laundering by accomplices of drug traffickers in casinos, gaming houses and horse racing; (x) that | did not account for fees paid in cash with the Mauritius Revenue Authority and that | converted such unaccounted fees into foreign exchange; (xi) that having regard to my income and that of my wife, the immoveable Properties that we own cannot be explained and or justified; that | acquired property for my daughter in the United Kingdom urer possibly a préfe nom ; i(xii) 5 and that | am in partnership with a Mauritian living in London in a hotel in Tottenham Court Road, a building known as Center Point; and that | have accepted cash above the authorized amount. 184, I pray that the Supreme Court declares that the findings set out at paragraphs 36 and 183 above are, as the case may be, in breach of natural justice, in breach of fairness, unreasonable, perverse, illegal and ultra vires. 185. | therefore pray the Supreme Court of Mauritius for leave to apply:~ (A) For an Order declaring that the findings set out below as contained at pages 222 to 227 of the Report are, as the case may be, in breach of natural justice, in breach of fairness, unreasonable, perverse, illegal and ultra vires and, namely : 0) ii) (iil) (iv) w) (vi) (viii) (ox) &i) (xi) that | have used a ‘black phone’ to communicate with my clients detained at ‘the Prison and that | have used my wife’s phone during the electoral ‘campaign for the 2014 General Elections; that | have committed numerous offences of ‘subordination’ of witnesses; that | have taken drug money as my fees; that I have acted in conflict of interest in the exercise of my duty as barrister, that | have received important sums of money from drug traffickers to finance my electoral campaign for the General Elections; that | have used former drug offenders as my henchmen during my electoral campaign for the General Elections; that | have ‘subordinated’ witnesses who deponed before the Commission; that | have instructed junior Counsel to put Rs 5 000 in the account of Mr Faizal Hussain, an Indian National convicted for drug trafficking; that | used my position as Chairman of the Gambling Regulatory Authority to allow money laundering by accomplices of drug traffickers in casinos, gaming houses and horse racing; that | did not account for fees paid in cash with the Mauritius Revenue Authority and that | converted such unaccounted fees in foreign exchange; that having regard to my income and that of my wife, the immoveable properties that we own cannot be explained and or justified; that | acquired property for my daughter in the United Kingdom under possibly a préfe nom ; and that | am in partnership with a Mauritian established in London in a hotel in Tottenham Court Road in a building known as Center Point; and that | have accepted cash above the authorized amount; and/Oray (8) For such other Order or Orders the Supreme Court may deem fit and proper to make in the circumstances of the case including a direction for the Respondents themselves or through the Co Respondent No 3 and/or Co-Respondents to bring up before the Supreme Court of Mauritius the Official Report and/or all the proceedings and/or documents and/or files and/or records of the Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking in Mauritius, appointed by Her Excellency the then President of Mauritius on 14 July 2015 chaired by the Respondent No.1 with the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as members, for the Declaration prayed for by the Applicant at paragraphs 184 and 185 (A) above. WITH COSTS. 186. | therefore pray accordingly. Solemnly affirmed by the abovenamed) deponent at Chambers, New Court House) This wd” ] Pe © peor Mauritius, Port Louis) .day of September 2018) 2a