![[Paul Lismore] Etienne Sinatanbou must be charged with contempt of court](https://www.zinfos-moris.com/photo/art/grande/27272059-27562120.jpg?v=1541424323 "[Paul Lismore] Etienne Sinatanbou must be charged with contempt of court")
![[Paul Lismore] Etienne Sinatanbou must be charged with contempt of court](https://www.zinfos-moris.com/photo/art/default/27272059-27562120.jpg?v=1541424323 "[Paul Lismore] Etienne Sinatanbou must be charged with contempt of court")
Compare and contrast:
1/ On Saturday 3rd November 2018, Etienne Sinatabou, a minister in our lovely etat de droit said this:
2/ Today, 2 days later : " La magistrate Meenakshi Bhogun souligne, dans son jugement rendu ce lundi 5 novembre, que «this Court is far from being convinced that the accused guilt and I find it easier to afford the accused, a benefit of doubt under each charge»....Joachim Roméo a non seulement nié les accusations contre lui mais il a passé l’épreuve du contre-interrogatoire et donné une version cohérente, a encore noté la magistrate."
The following points should concern all right thinking citizens who believe in the Rule of Law and in the famous quote of Dr Thomas Fuller in 1733, subsequently made famous in 1977 by Lord Denning when he said at the High Court in London : " To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago: ‘Be you never so high, the law is above you.".....Except in Mauritius, where if that ever was true, our prisons would be full of thieving politicians, and corrupt serviteurs du pays....
The presumption of innocence, i.e. the sacred principle that you are always innocent until proven guilty by a court of law, has somehow escaped the supposedly massive brain of the 'double laureate', Etienne Sinatanbou.
On Saturday, he decided on his own that Joachim Romeo, the accused, 'ti insilter et ti menace" so madame; in other words the accused was guilty,in his opinion, even before the magistrate had given her verdict based on ALL the evidence presented in court, including that of Joachim Romeo and that of the one Etienne Sinatanbou called the 'victim', his wife.
The court has decided that Joachim Romeo was not guilty of the offence, so I'll let you decide who was telling lies and who is the real victim...
What happens now? If an ordinary person had made the remarks of Etienne Sinatanbou, one could excuse that on the basis of ignorance of the law and plain stupidity. But Etienne Sinatanbou is a lawyer and, by his own reckoning and general behaviour, considers himself to be blessed with an intelligence that very few people in the world possesses. On top of that, he is a qualified lawyer, so he can't blame ignorance of the law, can he?
Will the Attorney General and the Chief Judge now do the decent thing and start contempt of court proceedings against Etienne Sinatanbou? Did his comments do more than just 'annoy' Joachim Romeo, as the new repressive amendment in the laws regarding ICTA dictate? Or are they much more serious as they consist of a blatant attack on the constitutional rights of a citizen who has the right to defend himself in court, even when he is accused by someone close to a politician?
Another example of our 'état de droit': this case has taken only nine months from police complaint to completion and a verdict in a court of law. Countless numbers of families of victims of drunken/careless drivers, families of murdered victims, etc are waiting for a resolution of their cases YEARS after the original complaint had been made.
What makes the families of our politicians or of our serviteurs du pays so special that our courts have no problem in finding time to complete their cases when they are the complainants? As I often ask, does their shit smell that nice?
Under the new law, Etienne Sinatanbou will no doubt find the above 'annoying', as he belongs to that class of people who do not respect our right to tell people what they don't want to hear....Sue me, then! And see whether your new law ought not to be stuck somewhere that has not seen any sunlight since birth.
Joachim Remo should of course sue Etienne Sinatanbou with that favourite thing of our politicians. What is it called? Oh yes! DIFFAMATION!
1/ On Saturday 3rd November 2018, Etienne Sinatabou, a minister in our lovely etat de droit said this:
" Dan la semaine, ena ene case ki in al la cour, ene missier KI TI INSILTER LI, TI MENACE LI...li (Mrs Sinatanbou) ene victim...dan le cas precis, sa missier ki fine, lakizer, li ena ene aveu ki in soumet dan la cour, ena ene temoin li oussi li in avouer le deli...les droits constitutionnels des uns s'arrêtent ou débute les droits constitutionnels des autres".
2/ Today, 2 days later : " La magistrate Meenakshi Bhogun souligne, dans son jugement rendu ce lundi 5 novembre, que «this Court is far from being convinced that the accused guilt and I find it easier to afford the accused, a benefit of doubt under each charge»....Joachim Roméo a non seulement nié les accusations contre lui mais il a passé l’épreuve du contre-interrogatoire et donné une version cohérente, a encore noté la magistrate."
The following points should concern all right thinking citizens who believe in the Rule of Law and in the famous quote of Dr Thomas Fuller in 1733, subsequently made famous in 1977 by Lord Denning when he said at the High Court in London : " To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago: ‘Be you never so high, the law is above you.".....Except in Mauritius, where if that ever was true, our prisons would be full of thieving politicians, and corrupt serviteurs du pays....
The presumption of innocence, i.e. the sacred principle that you are always innocent until proven guilty by a court of law, has somehow escaped the supposedly massive brain of the 'double laureate', Etienne Sinatanbou.
On Saturday, he decided on his own that Joachim Romeo, the accused, 'ti insilter et ti menace" so madame; in other words the accused was guilty,in his opinion, even before the magistrate had given her verdict based on ALL the evidence presented in court, including that of Joachim Romeo and that of the one Etienne Sinatanbou called the 'victim', his wife.
The court has decided that Joachim Romeo was not guilty of the offence, so I'll let you decide who was telling lies and who is the real victim...
What happens now? If an ordinary person had made the remarks of Etienne Sinatanbou, one could excuse that on the basis of ignorance of the law and plain stupidity. But Etienne Sinatanbou is a lawyer and, by his own reckoning and general behaviour, considers himself to be blessed with an intelligence that very few people in the world possesses. On top of that, he is a qualified lawyer, so he can't blame ignorance of the law, can he?
Will the Attorney General and the Chief Judge now do the decent thing and start contempt of court proceedings against Etienne Sinatanbou? Did his comments do more than just 'annoy' Joachim Romeo, as the new repressive amendment in the laws regarding ICTA dictate? Or are they much more serious as they consist of a blatant attack on the constitutional rights of a citizen who has the right to defend himself in court, even when he is accused by someone close to a politician?
Another example of our 'état de droit': this case has taken only nine months from police complaint to completion and a verdict in a court of law. Countless numbers of families of victims of drunken/careless drivers, families of murdered victims, etc are waiting for a resolution of their cases YEARS after the original complaint had been made.
What makes the families of our politicians or of our serviteurs du pays so special that our courts have no problem in finding time to complete their cases when they are the complainants? As I often ask, does their shit smell that nice?
Under the new law, Etienne Sinatanbou will no doubt find the above 'annoying', as he belongs to that class of people who do not respect our right to tell people what they don't want to hear....Sue me, then! And see whether your new law ought not to be stuck somewhere that has not seen any sunlight since birth.
Joachim Remo should of course sue Etienne Sinatanbou with that favourite thing of our politicians. What is it called? Oh yes! DIFFAMATION!
