1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

In Re:-

Devendranath Hurnam also know as Dev Hurnam, a British Qualified Barrister,

[UK and Wales], Chief Executive of Human Rights [Action Group] of 22
Bourbon Street, Port Louis Applicant

K P Matadeen, SPJ c/o Supreme Court, Port Louis

Respondent

I,Devendranath Hurnam also called Dev Hurnam, a British qualified Barrister,

Immigration Consultant and Chief Executive of Human Rights [Action Group],
residing at 16 Malherbes Street, Curepipe and having my office at 22 Bourbon
Street, Port Louis and holder of NIC H 1001471400711.

MAKE SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AS A HINDU AND SAY:-

1. I am a citizen of the Republic of Mauritius. I am a qualified Barrister and

am also engaged in active politics having been a Member of the National
Assembly for the period September 2000 to April 2005. I am a founder
member of a political party under the name of Parti Lepep. I am an
Immigration Consultant and I head the Human Rights [Action Group], a
voluntary Organisation.

2. I was called to the Mauritian Bar on 30 October 1975 and was in regular
private practice ever since except for two short periods when I was
appointed Crown Counsel and suspended from practice for one year until
my name was, on 30 January 2008, struck off the Roll of Law Practitioners.

3. I am a well known figure in Mauritius, and sometimes an outspoken

critic of the political and legal establishment, in particular of the
Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and some members of
the judiciary. I have appeared as Counsel in many locally
controversial cases (including appeals before the Privy Council) and
have also been a party in few cases namely Hurnam v Paratian
[1998]1AC 707 and Hurnam v The State of Mauritius [2006] UKPC
49,[2006] 1WLR 857 and in each of which appeals my position
vis-à-vis the State was vindicated. I have further instituted several
civil actions and criminal prosecutions against a number of Police
Officers, members of the Judiciary, legal officers and some barristers
 2

who have caused me irreparable damages and prejudice. Except for

criminal private prosecutions, most of the civil claims are still
pending after protracted stands of the State and the parties.

4. On 20th of April 2011, I affirmed an affidavit in support of contempt

proceedings against the Prime Minister of Mauritius. On the same day I
deposited in the Registry of the Supreme Court a copy of my Motion
paper, Notice of Motion and a copy of my affidavit in support of my
motion after paying all the required fees. I further caused all relevant
documents to be served on the Respondent and Co-Respondent. The
Usher of the Supreme Court effected service. I attach a certified true copy
of the aforesaid of documents duly served as Annex X.

5. The aid motion was listed by the Registry to 02 May 2011and was also set
out on the Roll of the Chief Usher. Respondent was Ag Chief Justice
despatching all formal matters instead and in lieu of the Chief Justice
in Court No.1 on 02 May 2011.

6. The matter was called accordingly and I moved for Leave to appear
personally in order to move in terms of my motion. Law Officers Madhub
and Maghooa were equally on their feet and before any statement was
made by them [their clients were not present in Court in the said
contempt proceedings] I reproduce the verbatim exchange between
Respondent and I as far as I re-call since I have been informed that there
is no record of the case in the Registry of the Court as I was shut out from
making my motion:-

“Respondent: Before I grant you leave, you have to amend some of the
averments of your affidavit;
Applicant: May I be informed which part/s of the affidavit;
Respondent: Paragraph 1 and in paragraph 2: …outrageously struck off
the Roll of Law Practitioners; in the Supreme Court such averments cannot
be accepted;
Applicant: This is no reason but in any event, I am prepared to make a
statement that I shall waive that part of the paragraph which is not
agreeable to you;
Respondent: This must be by way of an affidavit and you may come any
time, the doors of the Supreme Court is always open, I shall give you
leave, the Supreme Court in not Ritz Hotel; you are intelligent enough;
Mr Usher call the next case…”

7. I was shut out by Respondent from proceeding with my motion on the

basis of his statement that I have to amend that part of my affidavit where
I have averred that my name was outrageously struck off the Roll of Law
Practitioners and the Law Officers did not address the court. I have been
informed that a case file is opened only after a motion is made and
therefore, I am not in a position to produce a certified copy of the
 3

proceedings. I am of the view that the Supreme Court being a court

of record, the proceedings ought to have been recorded in order to
allow any litigant to appeal against any illegal order or any order in
excess of jurisdiction or issue process for any abuse of authority by a
Judge.

8. I aver that the reason set out for refusing me leave to appear in person is
against the express provisions of statutory and Constitutional provisions
and there was no valid reason invoked by Respondent when he refused
me leave to appear in person. Respondent ought to have allowed the
legal representatives of the parties to take any appropriate stand and not
jump into the ring thereby leaving the impression that Respondent held a
brief for the Prime Minister and the Attorney General or that he used a
colourable device simply to have the matter delayed pending the
proclamation of the Courts’ Amendment Bill No. 1 of 2011 [Vexatious
Litigation] which went through third reading on 12 April 2011 and is
awaiting Presidential Assent.

9. I further aver that Respondent did grant me leave to appear in

person in the following cases:--Re D Hurnam v Yeung Kam John
Yeung Sik Yuen SCR 104492 [Annex Y]; DPP v D Hurnam SCR
104493 [Annex Y1]. I attach as Annex Y and Y1, a certified true
copy of my affidavit dated 13 August 2010 and a copy of the
Minutes of Proceedings dated 6 September 2010; a certified
true copy of the first page of my affidavit dated September
2010 together with a copy of the minutes of proceedings dated
06 September 2010 respectively. I made exactly the same
averments to the effect that my name was outrageously struck
off the Roll of Law Practitioners and same are highlighted and
at no time did Respondent make any remark nor did he invite
me to amend such averments. In several cases against
Respondent personally, he simply denied such averments and
did not move through his legal advisers to have such averments
struck out.

10. I aver that I am entitled to make such averments and the granting
of leave to appear in person has no relevance to such averments.
However, in order not to embarrass any other Judge, I have
personally decided not to aver same in this affidavit and I maintain
that I am innocent.

11. I aver that before my above matter was called, there was another
motion for contempt by Barclays Leasing Co. Ltd v V Chummun and
others which was called for the first time. The Usher called the
names of all Respondents and as I represented Respondent No.2 in
 4

my capacity as Authorised Representative and Director, I followed

the first Respondent [in the matter] on the floor of the court.
Respondent made the following remarks to my address: Who is the
person there? I replied that I am representative of Respondent No.2
and he thought that he had belittled me when in truth and in fact
he failed to protect the integrity of the court.

12. I have reason to believe that Respondent’s conduct discloses the

hallmarks of personal vengeance and he should have refrained from
taking my cases instead of referring same to other judges as there
are several cases pending against him. I have also averred that that
he is one of the most errant judges of this Republic in view of the
numbers of cases which have been overturned by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council [10 out of 12 cases].

13. I further aver that following the setting aside of my application for
contempt against the Chief Justice on 4 November 2010,
Respondent and the other Judge who comprised the bench have
been cited as Co-Respondents in connection with their breach of
Articles 4 and 5 of the Civil Code, in my application for permission
to appeal the order of 4 November 2010 was issued on 12 January
2011 to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council [Re JCPC
2011/0002

14. In view of the contemptuous conduct of Respondent, I had no option

to proceed with my motion and I was shut out.

15. I aver that the Respondent, by acting as aforesaid, has committed

contempt of court and it is, therefore, urgent and necessary that the
above court do make the following orders:

A. Declaring and decreeing that Respondent has committed a

contempt of Court by refusing me Leave to proceed with a Motion
for Contempt against Navinchandra Ramgoolam, the Prime Minister
in the presence of the Attorney-General [Unreturned] on 02 May
2011 whereby he interfered with the course of justice and
influenced my conduct as a Litigant In Person and barred me
timely access to Court in a matter of urgency and public
interest;

B. Declaring and decreeing that Respondent’s oral Order refusing me

Leave to appear as Litigant In Person in the matter set out supra is
clearly in contempt of Respondent’s own previous decisions in Re D
Hurnam v Yeung Kam John Yeung Sik Yuen SCR 104492; DPP v
 5

D Hurnam SCR 104493 wherein he granted me leave to appear

in person and in which proceedings I had specifically made the
same averments as in the matter under A above in that “ That
my name was outrageously struck off the Roll of Law
Practitioners” to which he took exception and which matter he
ordered me to amend and strike out on 02 May 2011 as a
condition precedent to granting me Leave to appear and move in
terms of the motion;

C. Declaring and decreeing that Respondent is in clear contempt of

the Judicial Committee’s Judgment in D Hurnam v Paratian 2 WLR
790 and in contempt of the Constitution;

D. Committing Respondent to jail for contempt and or he be dealt with for

contempt as the Supreme Court may deem fit in the particular
circumstances of the case and

E. And make any other order as the justice of the case may require.

16. I pray accordingly.

Solemnly affirmed by the above named deponent]

Chambers, Supreme Court, Port Louis ]
This 03rd day of May 2011 ]

Drawn up by me Before Me

D Hurnam Chief Court Officer

Applicant Supreme Court

I certify that this affidavit will be used in Court

D Hurnam/Applicant In Person
6