IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

(Before the Honourable Judge in Chambers

under article 806 of the Code de ProcdureCivile)

In the matter of:-

KalidassTeeluckdharry
Applicant
v.

1. The Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking in Mauritius, represented by its

Secretary, Mr. K. Conhye
2. Paul Lam ShangLeen, Chairman, Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking in
Mauritius
3. SamioullahLauthan, Assessor, Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking in
Mauritius
4. Dr.Ravind Kumar Domun, Assessor, Commission of Inquiry on Drug
Trafficking in Mauritius
All of Fookes House, 5th Floor, Bourbon Street, Port Louis.
Respondents

In the presence of:

1. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney-Generals Office,

RenganadenSeeneevassen Building, Pope Hennessy Street, Port Louis
2. State of Mauritius, service to be effected on the Honourable Attorney General,
Attorney-Generals Office,RenganadenSeeneevassen Building, Pope Henessy
Street, Port Louis.
3. The Commissioner of Prisons, Beau Bassin Central Prisons, Beau Bassin
4. The Mauritius Bar Association, represented by its Secretary, service to be
effected at its seat at 4th Floor, Max City Building, Pope Hennessy Street, Port
Louis.
Co-Respondents

I, KalidassTeeluckdharry, a Barrister, of Villa 22, Landmark Complex, VingtPieds Road,

Grand Bay, holder of National Identity Card No. T2208754612557

MAKE SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AS A HINDU AND SAY THAT

1. I am the applicant in the above matter.

1
2. I am a member of Co-Respondent No. 4.

3. I am a barrister of 16 years standing at the Mauritius Bar, having been affirmed as a

barrister before the Supreme Court of Mauritius on the 11th January 2001.

4. I am also an elected member of the National Assembly since December 2014, and
on the 28th March 2017, I was appointed to the Constitutional post of Deputy
Speaker, which post I still hold.

5. I have, since the start of my career as barrister, been appearing regularly before all
the Courts of Mauritius, including the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

6. My services have regularly been retained by persons who have been charged with
criminal offences, including drug-related offences.

7. In the discharge of my duties as barrister, I have been called upon to visit detainees
in both prisons and police cells.

8. On the 14th July 2015, the President of the Republic of Mauritius issued a
Commission to inquire and report on all aspects of drug trafficking in Mauritius.

9. The said Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking in Mauritius (hereinafter the

Commission) is chaired by the Respondent No. 2, with the Respondents No. 3 and
No. 4 as Assessors.

10. I gather from a note dated 21stJanuary 2016 on the Government website
http://www.govmu.org that the terms of reference of the Commission are as follows:
The terms of reference of the Commission are to inquire into and report on
all aspects of drug trafficking in the Republic of Mauritius, including:-
(i) the scale and extent of the illicit drug trade and consumption in
Mauritius and their economic and social consequences;
(ii) sources/points of origin/routes of illicit drugs;
(iii) the channels of entry and distribution of drugs in Mauritius;
(iv) the channels of entry and distribution of drugs in prisons;
(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;
(vii) the adequacy of existing legislation;
(viii) the operational effectiveness of the various agencies involved in the
fight against drug trafficking;

2
 (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;
(x) the need for fostering linkages and coordination among the various
agencies and other local, regional and international entities dealing
with drugs related matters for better strategic direction;
(xi) 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 political influence in the drug
trafficking trade; and
(xiv) any other matter connected with, or relevant or incidental to
paragraphs (i) to (xiii) 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.

11. On the 30th June 2017 at about noon, I received by an Usher of the Supreme Court a
Summons dated the 27th June 2017 to appear before the Commission on the 6th July
2017 at 13:00 hours to give evidence/explanation regarding my alleged conduct,
dealing, association with prisoners convicted for drug offences and/or those on
remand.

12. In the said summons, I was also informed that I may be accompanied by a legal
adviser of my choice to assist me at the hearing.

13. I was further informed in the said summons that failure on my part to attend the
session or to refuse to answer questions would be visited with a fine not exceeding
Rs 5m (Five Million Rupees) imposed by the Commission [emphasis supplied in
the letter]. A copy of the said letter is attached as document marked as
DOCUMENT A.

14. I am of the view, and I am advised, that the said summons is not in compliance with
the Second Schedule (section 10) to the Commissions of Inquiry Act.

15. In reply to the said summons, on the 30th June 2017, I wrote to the Commission, to
the attention of the Chairman (the Respondent No. 2), expressing serious reservation
about the terms conduct, dealing, association with prisoners. and pointing out
that my services had always been retained in a professional capacity as barrister.

3
16. I stated in my said letter that so as to assist the Commission in a meaningful manner,
I would wish to be communicated the (1) the names of the prisoners, (2) the relevant
period and (3) any document on which the Commission intended to examine or
cross-examine me.

17. I further stated in my said letter that the particulars requested for would enable me to
retrieve relevant files and information to enable me to answer any query. A copy of
my said letter is attached as document marked as DUCUMENT B.

18. My intention was, and still is, to assist the Commission in a meaningful way, as I am
fully aware as a citizen not only practising as a barrister but also as a duly elected
member of the National Assembly, working at grassroots level, that drug is a
national scourge and all efforts to rid the Nation of such a plague should be upheld.

19. By letter of the same date, i.e. 30th June 2017, I wrote to the Commissioner of
Prisons, (the Co-Respondent No. 3) informing him of the summons and requesting
him that, in order that I may assist the Commission in its duty, I be provided with a
list of prisoners whom I visited between January 2001 as to-date in the prisons,
namely (1) Beau Bassin Central Prisons, (2)Beau Bassin New Wing Prisons, (3)
Beau Bassin Female Prisons, (4) High Security Prisons at Phoenix La Bastille, (5)
Grand River North West Prisons, (6) Petit Verger Prisons and (7) Melrose Prisons.
A copy of the said letter is attached as document marked as DOCUMENT C.

20. I have not yet been favoured with a written reply from Mr. Appadoo, the Co-
Respondent No. 3. However, upon query by me by telephone on 4th July 2017, the
latter informed me that the documents which I had requested were not available as
firstly, information prior to 2005 have been archived and secondly, books and
records for the period 2005 onwards are in the possession of the Respondent No. 1.

21. On the 3rd July 2017, I retained the services of Messrs. Rama Valayden and Nandraj
Patten as Counsel.

22. However, as regard my request for particulars made in my said letter of the 30th June
2017 to the Commission, on the 4th July 2017,I received a reply dated the 3rd July
2017 under the hand and signature of the Secretary of the Commission, informing
me I will be heard by theCommission of Inquiry to explain your dealings in drug
trafficking cases in your capacity as Barrister-at-Law. A copy of the said letter is
attached as document marked as DOCUMENT D.

23. On the 3rd July 2017, before Counsel had taken cognizance of DOCUMENT D, as
per my instructions, Counsel applied to the Commission referring to my requests to
the Commission (DOCUMENT B) and to the Co-Respondent No. 3 (DOCUMENT
C). In his said letter, Counsel requested for the information I had asked for to be
communicated to him in order that he may meaningfully assist me at the hearing and

4
 having regard to section 13 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. A copy of the said
letter is attached as document marked as DOCUMENT E.

24. I am informed by Counsel that the Commission replied on the 4th July 2017,
informing Counsel that the Commission has no obligation to provide any
information to him. A copy of the said letter is attached as document marked as
DOCUMENT F.

25. I am also informed that, on the same day and in response to above letter from the
Commission (DOCUMENT F), Counsel wrote again to the Commission, referring to
its reply to me (DOCUMENT D refers), and requested for full particulars of the
alleged dealings in drug trafficking cases in my capacity as barrister.

26. In his said letter, Counsel noted that dealings is ordinarily defined as business
relations, commerce, trade, traffic and transactions, and he requested the
Commission to indicate in what way as a barrister I had allegedly dealt in drug
trafficking. Counsel further added that the information requested for was essential
for Counsel to assist me and to ensure fairness and respect of my fundamental rights
under the Constitution, which is our Supreme Law.

27. In his said letter, Counsel also referred to the Commissions letter of the 4th July
2017 addressed to him (DOCUMENT F) and insisted on the disclosure of the
information requested for, in compliance with the basic rules of evidence, which
apply to all proceedings before the Commission. A copy of Counsels letter is
attached as document marked as DOCUMENT G.

28. I am informed that the Commission replied to Counsel by letter dated 5th July 2017,
informing Counsel that the Commission stood by its reply already given on the 3rd
July 2017 and requiring Counsel to note that I have been summoned to appear before
the Commission on the 6th July 2017. A copy of the Commissions letter is attached
and marked as DOCUMENT H.

29. I view with deep concern the Commissions reply to Counsel that it has no
obligation to provide any information to Counsel, in the teeth of Section 13 of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act, which provides in no uncertain terms that the Law of
Evidence is to apply and of the basic rules of evidence to the effect that the citizen is
entitled to full and frank disclosure of all documents which may be used to examine
or cross- examine him, so that his Counsel can meaningfully assist him. For ease of
convenience, Section 13 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act is reproduced
hereunder:
13. Law of evidence to apply
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.

5
30. In the light of the reply by the Commission to Counsel that it has no obligation
toprovide any information to you, I state and verily believe that, my right to legal
representation and my constitutional right to a fair hearing will be seriously and
irretrievably jeopardised.

31. Furthermore, in view of the systematic defamatory propaganda in the press, whereby
the proceedings before the Commission are being reported almost on a daily basis
and verbatim, with my photo alongside with serious allegations quoad another
Counsel and captions such as Paul Lam ShangLeen: Me Sanjeev Teeluckdharry
aura rpondre la commission, I apprehend that the Respondent No. 2 has
embarked on a mud-slinging exercise against me and on a course of conduct that
clearly indicates that he has no intention to observe the basic and elementary rules of
evidence and of fairness and natural justice.

32. As regards the smearing campaign by the media, I am, by way of some examples,
attaching documents marked as DOCUMENT J1, DOCUMENT J2,
DOCUMENTJ3. Such articles, which have wide repercussions on the website are,
intentionally or unintentionally, tarnishing the honour, dignity, reputation and
independence of members of the Bar, including myself.

33. The upholding of the honour, dignity, reputation and independence of members of
the Bar is one of the objects of Co-Respondent No. 4, which has also the duty of
safeguarding the interests of the Mauritius Bar.

34. I state that from the verbatim reproduction of the proceedings of the Commission
any reasonable person, and more particularly members of the legal profession,
would infer that the Chairman of the Commission is acting more as a Spanish
Inquisitor against members of the Bar than chairing a Commission which is in duty
bound to act in accordance with its terms of reference, which include inquiring into
drug trafficking with a view to assist in the eradication of that scourge affecting
vulnerable citizens of the Nation, particularly the youth.

35. I further state that it is clear from the contents of DOCUMENT A, DOCUMENT
D,DOCUMENT Hand DOCUMENT F that the Commission does not intend to
make a full and frank disclosure of all documents, records, statements and any other
material in its possession which it intends to use quoad me.

36. I state that, in embarking on this course of conduct, the Commission is acting
unlawfully, unfairly, unreasonably, unconstitutionally, in breach of the basic rules of
evidence and of natural justice.

37. I solemnly affirm that during my 16 years of practice at the Bar, I have always
acted properly, diligently and according to rules and the Code of Ethics for
Barristers. I have never been involved in any malpractice and my relations with my
clients, including those suspected of drug offences, have always been strictly in my
capacity as a barrister.

6
38. As I have not been informed of any allegations made against me and the substance
of the evidence in support of such allegations, I am in the dark as to the line of
examination which the Commission will take.More especially I am concerned that I
may be called upon to answer questions which would infringe the legal professional
privilege between a barrister and his client. Furthermore, as a barrister who, in the
consequence of the exercise of his profession has become depository of any
information confided in me, I am precluded by section 300 of the Criminal Code to
reveal such information except when compelled by law to become informer.

39. I am advised that the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, which
empowers me to be summoned as a witness, do not have the effect of compelling me
by law to reveal privileged information confided in me in my professional capacity
unless the persons who confided such information to me expressly waive in writing
the privilege.

40. The proceedings of the Commission, as reported in the media so far, reveal that the
Respondents are proceeding as Spanish Inquisitors, unmindful of the law of
evidence and of the legal professional privilege and in utter disregard of the rules of
natural justice and fairness, which ought to prevail in a State where the rule of law
prevails.

41. I state that, as a citizen I, therefore, need the protection of the law against the
unlawful acts and doings of the Respondents, as particularised above.

42. This is the more so that the cardinal principles which have always to be strictly
observed by any Commission of Inquiry are well established for having been
propounded by the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry, under the
Chairmanship of Lord Salmon, HMSO, 1966 at page 44, which read as follows:
The following cardinal principles (paragraph 32) should be observed to
minimise the risk of personal hurt and injustice to any person involved in the
inquiries: -
(i) Before any person becomes involved in an inquiry, the Tribunal must be
satisfied that there are circumstances which affect him and which the
Tribunal proposes to investigate.
(ii) Before any person who is involved in an inquiry is called as a witness, he
should be informed in advance of allegations against him and the
substance of the evidence in support of them.
(iii) (a) He should have adequate opportunity of preparing his case and of
being assisted by legal advisers.
(b) His legal expenses should normally be met out of public funds.
(iv) He should have the opportunity of being examined by his own solicitor or
counsel and of stating his case in public at the inquiry.

7
 (iv) Any material witnesses he wishes called at the inquiry should, if
reasonably practicable, be heard.
(v) He should have the opportunity of testing by cross-examination conducted by
his own solicitor or counsel any evidence which may affect him

43. At paragraph 48 of its report (page 22), the Royal Commission consider it to be of
the highest importance that the six cardinal principles should always be strictly
observed.

44. Furthermore, the haste with which the Commission is insisting that I should appear
before them on the 6th July 2017 (DOCUMENT H refers) without disclosing the
information which Counsel and myself have requested for goes against the principle
of granting sufficient time to witnesses to avoid injustice to them. Paragraph 49 of
the Report of the Royal Commission reads as follows:
49. The question arises, how is it possible to ensure that any
allegations against witnesses and the substance of any evidence against
them will be made known to them so as to give them an adequate
opportunity of preparing their case (Cardinal principles 1, 2 and 3(a)).
We believe that the answer to this question lies mainly in less haste. We
are under the impression that the tempo of some of the post-war
Tribunals, particularly in the early stages of an inquiry, was somewhat
too hurried. We appreciate that there should be no dilatoriness in
starting the inquiry and pushing it to a conclusion. It is urgent that the
truth should be revealed to the public as speedily as possible.
Nevertheless, a few weeks more in preparing the material for arriving at
the truth is a small price to pay in order to avoid injustice.

45. In view of the urgency of the matter, I stand advised and verily believe that the
present action may be initiated by way of motion supported by affidavit where the
circumstances require urgency.
46. In the circumstances, I pray for
(a) an Order directing the Respondents to make a full and frank disclosure of all
documents, records, statements and any other material in its possession which
they intend to use against me to enable me to give meaningful
evidence/explanation regarding my alleged conduct, dealing, association with
prisoners convicted for drug offences and/or those on remand and to explain
my alleged dealings in drug trafficking cases in your capacity as Barrister-
at-Law.;
(b) an Order in the nature of an Injunction restraining and prohibiting the
Respondents from inquiring into my alleged conduct, dealing, association
with prisoners convicted for drug offences and/or those on remandand into
my alleged dealings in drug trafficking cases in your capacity as Barrister-
at-Law.until and unless they make a full and frank disclosure of all

8
 documents, records, statements and any other material in its possession which
they intend to use against me;
(c) Such other Orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.

9
 47. I pray accordingly.

Solemnly affirmed by the abovenamed )

Deponent at Chambers, New Court House, )
Jules Koenig Street, Port Louis )
On the 5th July 2017 )

Drawn up by me Before me

YashBalgobin
Attorney-at-Law

This affidavit will be used in an application before the Supreme Court of Mauritius

YashBalgobin
Attorney-at-Law

10
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

In the matter of:-

Kalidass Teeluckdharry
Applicant
v.

5. The Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking in Mauritius, represented by its

Secretary, Mr. K. Conhye
6. Paul Lam ShangLeen, Chairman, Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking in
Mauritius
7. SamioullahLauthan, Assessor, Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking in
Mauritius
8. Dr.Ravind Kumar Domun, Assessor, Commission of Inquiry on Drug
Trafficking in Mauritius
All of Fookes House, 5th Floor, Bourbon Street, Port Louis.
Respondents

In the presence of:

5. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney-Generals Office,

RenganadenSeeneevassen Building, Pope Hennessy Street, Port Louis
6. State of Mauritius, service to be effected on the Honourable Attorney General,
Attorney-Generals Office,RenganadenSeeneevassen Building, Pope Henessy
Street, Port Louis.
7. The Commissioner of Prisons, Beau Bassin Central Prisons, Beau Bassin
8. The Mauritius Bar Association, represented by its Secretary, service to be
effected at its seat at 4th Floor, Max City Building, Pope Hennessy Street, Port
Louis.
Co-Respondents

11
12