Paul Lismore


Rédigé par E. Moris le Samedi 16 Novembre 2019

Before the zombies and aspirants to the role of dishwasher in la cuisine start frothing at their mouth, let me remind you what the Constitution says about the role of the Attorney General.

Section 69(1) clearly stipulates that " There shall be an Attorney General who shall be PRINCIPAL LEGAL ADVISER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS."

Nowhere does it say that the Attorney General must put on a clown's outfit and attack or comment on court cases which have found in favour of your opponent. Only a buffoon will do that.

This is not the first time where the rules of civilised and ethical behaviour have been thrown out of the window by a government that seems to exist only to do anything to ensure its maintenance in power forever. In the Roches Noires case, we had the same burlesque scenario where not only the Attorney General disputed the decision of the Intermediate Court, but also the pisser SAJ, soidizan Queen's Counsel, who made some offensive comments about the Court's judgement.

In the UK, as people keep telling me that our parliamentary system is based on the Westminsterian framework, the main role of the Attorney General is " to advise the government on any legal repercussions of their actions, either at meetings or in writing.... and advising the government, individual government departments and individual government ministers on legal matters" That is it! You will never, ever see a UK Attorney General questioning or commenting a Court's judgement. It is simply never done! At worst, an unduly lenient sentence by a court can be referred by the AG to a higher court, but that is it!

Ask yourself this question: Instead of whingeing like a demanding, spoilt bitch about the Court's verdict, why doesn't the Attorney General do the most obvious thing and reform our decrepit laws?

That is his job. If there are some deficiencies in FIAMLA, don't blame the judges. Blame yourself and all these rotten politicians who have drafted and legislated bad laws, laws so full of loopholes and inconsistencies that even a crap lawyer could demolish any case against his/her client.

I have written about FIAMLA and my own views some 2 months ago about the likely verdict of the court in the FIAMLA case against Ramgoolam.

You will see that in law, there was simply no case for Ramgoolam to answer. And who is in charge of all things legal for the government? The same Attorney General now bringing his post into complete disgrace with his stupid comments....

Of course, where rotten politicians lead the way with their stupidity, our wonderful zourlanus will follow the trail and drop some more turds of their own. Esp le defi. Do these people have any notion of the law at all? Do they ever study the relevant statutes and then hopefully form their own opinion about the legal matters in play? Or do they think that shoving a microphone under the nose of some arsehole in court will somehow give them the truth and some amazing pearls of wisdom?

Maneesh Gobin knows perfectly well what he is doing: he comments the court's decision whilst simultaneously asserting that " Mo pa p comment decision la cour la moi! mo p zis dire...." When a half decent AG would have simply said, "Sorry, can't comment on the court's decision. It is a matter purely for the Courts and for the DPP now". It is clear that, like in the Roches Noires case, he is putting pressure on the DPP to appeal the court's decision. The DPP did the decent thing on legal grounds in that case and did not appeal. Nor should he appeal this one too, again on essentially legal grounds.

Read the post I have attached in the first comment. Look particularly at what FIAMLA says about "exempt transactions", and how based purely on that issue, there was never any case against Ramgoolam to begin with. Remember, this was not raised at the Intermediate Court and should the DPP feel intimidated by the AG and appeal this decision, then the defence lawyers will have a field day over this at the Supreme Court.

I can't end this post without commenting on the favourite word of the zombies and our hypocritical politicians: coffre forts. Now that we know that there was nothing illegal with Ramgoolam's coffre forts or its contents, will SAJ/Pravin Jugnauth/Berenger/Zaza etc tell us exactly how many hundreds of millions of rupees they themselves have received as 'donations politiques'?

I said it in 2015: the only thing that differentiates these politicians from Ramgoolam's coffre forts is this: they were clever enough to hide their money or to transfer the donations abroad. Ramgoolam was stupid to keep his in his house, esp when he knew that SAJ had repeatedly threatened at public meetings to lock him up.

So, instead of using that wrinkled pussy face to spout partisan rubbish, Maneesh Gobin should be doing what he is paid to do: advise the government in law and try to change our antediluvian and quite obsolete legislation. En place ki li amerde nou fesse avek so ban ggtri politik la.

You would have of course noticed that the Attorney General, SAJ, and all these other clean, law abiding people have not said one word on the fact that their Senior Adviser to the PMO and Board member of so many useless parastatals, Monsieur Montrou, is now a criminal in the eyes of the law...

Samedi 16 Novembre 2019

Nouveau commentaire :

Règles communautaires

Nous rappelons qu’aucun commentaire profane, raciste, sexiste, homophobe, obscène, relatif à l’intolérance religieuse, à la haine ou comportant des propos incendiaires ne sera toléré. Le droit à la liberté d’expression est important, mais il doit être exercé dans les limites légales de la discussion. Tout commentaire qui ne respecte pas ces critères sera supprimé sans préavis.