It is with a very heavy heart that I pen down these words in memory of my late friend and mentor, Kailash Purryag. His passing represents an immense loss to his bereaved family, to the country, and to the legal profession. I propose to focus on my interaction with him in the latter field.
I first met Kailash in 1986, two years after I was called to the Mauritian Bar. He had returned to practise as an attorney, after resigning as Minister of Health. He preferred to walk out, rather than hang on to power, on a question of principle, following a disagreement with the then Prime Minister, Sir Anerood Jugnauth. His law office happened to be in the same building as mine. Soon after, he started instructing me in court cases, and we met on an almost daily basis. Our friendship and professional rapport grew from there.
Highest Offices of the Land
From the very outset, Kailash struck me by his simplicity and humility. He was very passionate about law, politics and economics. He was a righteous and pious man, and had plenty of sound advice to tender to the beginner that I was, especially on the intricacies of civil procedure, with which I was not yet familiar. He was ever so grateful to his mentor, late attorney Maxime Sauzier, Snr, with whom he underwent his attorney’s apprenticeship, and felt it was his turn to give back to the youngsters of the profession. My interactions with Kailash were essentially legal, although we did share common interests in politics.
Kailash’s return to the legal profession in 1986 was short-lived. He was re-elected in 1987, and became Minister of Social Security. He came back between 1991 and 1995. He was again elected in 1995 and became a Minister, and then Deputy Prime Minister. His final stint in the profession was between 2000 until 2005.
Kailash was a stalwart and staunch defender of the Labour Party, but politics never came in the way to shroud his legal acumen and objectivity. He was a pure product of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam’s political philosophy. Like SSR, he never lost sight of his humble beginnings, and had a soft spot for the downtrodden – hence his firm belief in the Welfare State. Later, he would become the trusted confidant of our Prime Minister, Dr Navin Ramgoolam, who entrusted him with three of the country’s highest constitutional offices in succession: Deputy Prime Minister in 1997, Speaker of the National Assembly in 2005 and President of the Republic in 2010. He dutifully assumed all these functions with dignity and decorum, and in an irreproachable manner.
Our Landmark Cases
Regardless of the position he occupied, be it as Minister, Speaker of President, Kailash would every now and again call on me to seek my views on pressing legal issues, especially constitutional ones. He had a penchant for the Indian Constitution, and owned a rich collection of books on law, economics, political and social history. Ironically, our legal bond flourished during Kailash’s stints in the opposition, as I then got to work closer with him professionally. It reached its apogee between 2000 and 2005, during which time he instructed me in three landmark cases: Chaumière v. Government of Mauritius & Ors, Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam v. State of Mauritius & Ors, and Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam v. Sir Anerood Jugnauth.
In the case of Chaumière, we appeared for the then President of the Labour Party, who applied for leave for judicial review to challenge the Government’s decision not to levy capital gains tax in respect of the sale and development of 1,200 arpents of land forming part of the Illovo Deal. One of the main issues was whether Mr Chaumière had locus standi to challenge this deal. Adopting a liberal approach, the Chief Justice Pillay and Judge Lam Shang Leen granted him leave, on the grounds that the issue raised was significant, that the vindication of the rule of law was important, the likely absence of any other responsible challenge and the nature of the breach of duty. However, shortly after, Government thwarted our victory, by passing the Sugar Efficiency Act 2001, whose effect was to render legal the non-levying of the impugned taxes under the Illovo deal. Nonetheless, Chaumière remains, to date, a leading case in matters of locus standi.
In Dr N. Ramgoolam v. The State of Mauritius & Ors, the Plaintiff, then Leader of the Opposition, challenged the decision of the President, acting on the advice of Cabinet, to maintain Private Parliamentary Secretaries (PPS’s) in office after the dissolution of the National Assembly on 23 April 2005, purportedly until the general elections of 3 July 2025. Our argument was that the President’s decision violated the Constitution, according to which only the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker could lawfully remain in office until the first sitting of the Assembly after the next general elections. When the case was first called before the Supreme Court on 16 May 2005, the PPS’s announced that they would resign, thereby conceding defeat. Needless to say, this was not just a resounding legal victory for Dr Ramgoolam, but more so a political one, coming as it did two months before the general elections. The accompanying photograph shows Dr Ramgoolam, Kailash Purryag and myself in the Supreme Court on that fateful day.
In Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam v. Sir Anerood Jugnauth, we represented Dr Ramgoolam in a defamation case against Sir Anerood Jugnauth. At the time the case came for hearing, the defendant had, in the meantime, in 2003, become President of the Republic. The issue was whether the scope and extent of the immunity granted to the President by section 30A of the Constitution extends to civil actions arising out of events which took place before his assumption of office and unconnected with his official duties. The Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative, distinguishing the American precedent of Bill Clinton, cited by us, which declined immunity to President Clinton. It is worth mentioning that Yusuf Aboobaker, SC, who was appearing with me in the case, recused himself, and very nobly so, on the ground that he was the President of the Electoral Supervisory Commission.
Clean Hands
Whenever I embarked on a case with Kailash, it proved to be an exciting legal adventure. Its outcome was immaterial, because the intellectual satisfaction we derived from it, coupled with its potential contribution to our jurisprudence, was primordial. Kailash continually impressed on me that our first and foremost duty was towards the court, as opposed to pleasing our client at all costs. He always doted on me, telling me that he saw in me the ability to excel, and kept urging me to reach the top. Shortly before his demise, he sent a message, not to me, but to his barrister niece, requesting her to “ please ” tell me that I had made it there. I was moved to tears when she forwarded me Kailash’s message on the very day of his passing.
Kailash was a man of utmost honesty and integrity. These qualities were aptly brought home to Kailash by my late uncle Deorishi Boolell, during a haldi ceremony, in my presence. We were proceeding to wash our hands, after dinner, when my uncle smilingly told Kailash: “You need not wash your hands, Mr Purryag. Your hands are clean”.
Sanjay Bhuckory, SC
