IVANN BIBI
On December 1st 2023, the Prime Minister of Mauritius Pravind Jugnauth submitted a motion to the National Assembly of Mauritius signaling his Governments’ intention to go forward with the adoption of the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s (EBC) report dating from early 2020.
This move comes almost four years after the release of the EBC report, and stinks of a desperate machiavellic ploy by a wholly unpopular regime that is clawing every which way possible for political survival. The adoption of the EBC’s report this late in the game can be qualified as repugnant political maneuvering in the most vile and undemocratic way, an immoral and irresponsible act by a failing Government that is rapidly losing steam. This action makes it clear as day that the MSM Government sees its defeat in the looming General Elections a near-certainty.
Such a move, the adoption of an EBC report on the virtual eve of a General Election, has never occurred before in the history of the Republic of Mauritius. The reason being that normally the adoption or rejection of EBC reports are done within a reasonable delay after such reports have been issued. The EBC produces these reports at approximately ten-year intervals, and typically issues them right after a General Election, thereby giving the Electoral Commission, the Parliament and its elected officials, the Opposition, and the citizens of Mauritius a fair amount of time to implement, fine-tune, and adapt to all the important changes and measures that take place when a report from the EBC is to be adopted by Government. Which is why in the past most, if not all, of the reports by the EBC were either adopted or rejected within a reasonable delay after their issuance, typically within months of them having been made public.
Giving all the many actors that are involved in, and affected by, the adoption of an EBC report time to assimilate the changes it entails is crucial. Failure to do so could compromise future voters and potentially even future elections. The “re-districting” of a country’s constituencies is no small feat; and has enormous consequences for the political landscape of any Nation.
Unfortunately, the standard operating procedure when it comes to EBC reports described above has never been codified by the law, i.e. that the EBC report would either be adopted or rejected within months of its being made public. This was, however, for all intents and purposes, the standard practice by all preceding Government’s to date: and was done so with a sense of duty and fairness to the system we call “democracy.” That all changed on 1 December 2023, with the motion by Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth and his MSM Government.
It is clear to many political observers today that with this motion the Prime Minister is in essence attempting to weaponize the EBC’s report, to utilize it as a political tool in order to gain a political advantage against his adversaries in the upcoming General Election. Having known for nearly four years that they would implement the EBC report, whilst keeping the Parliamentary opposition, and the rest of the Nation, in the dark: the MSM Government has had the unfair advantage of being able to canvass the soon to be newly re-districted constituencies for the past four years while all others were left oblivious. Such political shenanigans are machiavellic at best; and far more sinister, potentially unconstitutional and illegal behavior, at worst.
To make matters worse, it has been known for quite some time now that the MSM Government has placed what are perceived as political cronies amid many such institutions as the EBC, and rumor has it that the EBC itself was not spared from such actions. If this is true, it would mean that the EBC report that is soon to be adopted on the virtual eve of the coming General Elections is a very sordid and tainted affair indeed.
Citizens far and near, myself included, think that this is none other than a tailor-made act of gerrymandering in an attempt to potentially rig the next General Elections in favor of an undemocratic, autocratic, narco-state type regime that is beyond fearful of losing power. A regime that will go to all manner of lengths to remain at the helm of the sinking ship that has become today the State of Mauritius.
Faced with such a decrepit situation, I call for a lawsuit, and an injunction, against the implementation of the EBC report from 2020. It is a feeble far-fetched cry, one that is sure to fail, especially given the ineffectiveness of the Mauritian judiciary today; a judiciary that not only lacks a constitutional court, but one whose weakness is only made more self-evident by the justifiable need to have its highest court of appeals residing in a foreign country.
What to do then? Faced with such a predicament, the only thing I can think of is to advocate for another lawsuit and another injunction: against the holding of General Elections in Mauritius prior to August 2024. Let me explain. Once the EBC’s report is officially adopted, and passed in Parliament, it becomes the new law of the land. The Electoral Commission must then get fast to work to make the changes it recommends and implement them on the ground. This involves the compilation of a new electoral register of eligible voters, conforming with the new boundaries of constituencies detailed in the EBC report that is adopted.
There is a caveat though, and this is where my idea for a lawsuit and injunction against any General Election in Mauritius prior to August 2024 comes into play. By law in Mauritius, any newly compiled voter register will only come into effect as of August 2024. Under normal circumstances, that is, without the adoption of the EBC report of 2020, if a General Election were held prior to August 2024, then the Electoral Commission would simply use the electoral register from 2023. No big deal. However, with the adoption of the EBC report of 2020, that would no longer be feasible. There would be too many incongruities between the newly redistricted constituencies under the EBC report of 2020, and the electoral register of 2023 for any election to be valid. The said register, i.e. the register from 2023, would not have considered all the changes that were made, and became force of law, once the EBC report of 2020 comes into effect. Hence, any General Election held prior to August 2024, after the EBC report of 2020 has been adopted, is defacto, in my opinion, unconstitutional and cannot take place. And I therefore call for an injunction at the Supreme Court of Mauritius along those lines.
Practically speaking, unless the Prime Minister had intended to hold General Elections prior to August 2024, such a lawsuit and injunction would have no effect. However, should the PM, for any reason whatsoever, want to hold the General Elections prior to August 2024, then this would throw a monster of a wrench into his plans.
Lastly, whilst we are on the topic of General Elections in Mauritius and lawsuits and injunctions: I have one last idea I would like to throw out, especially to the Parliamentary Opposition: I advocate for a lawsuit and an injunction against the Electoral Commission itself. An injunction that aims to prevent the holding of ANY General Elections in Mauritius until they can prove that the integrity of the electoral registers is intact–as they have already admitted that some at least 6,000 voters were apparently illegally removed from the voter registers during the 2019 General Elections, and thus these voters were prevented from voting. As far as I know, to date, the Electoral Commission has neither explained how that happened nor what has been done to ensure that it does not occur again. To me, this means that we have no guarantee going forward of the integrity of our voter registers—and therefore it stands to reason that we cannot hold “free and fair elections” under such circumstances.
Let us not forget the amendment brought by MSM Government in the August 2016 Finance Bill, Section 44, which modified the “Representation of People Act:”
- Representation of the People Act amended
The Representation of the People Act is amended –
- (a) in section 2, by inserting, in the appropriate alphabetical order, the following new definition –
“public notice” means a notice published in the Gazette, in a newspaper, in electronic form or through any other technological means or in such other manner as the Commission or Electoral Commissioner may determine;
- (b) in section 6A, in subsection (1), by deleting the words “notice published in the Gazette” and replacing them by the words “public notice”;
- (c) in section 9A, in subsection (4), by deleting the words “notice published in the Gazetteand in 3 daily newspapers” and replacing them by the words “public notice”;
(d) in section 10, in subsection (1)(b)(ii), by deleting the words “further notice of paragraph (a) by publication in at least 3 daily newspapers” and replacing them by the words “public notice of paragraph (a)”;
(e) in section 56, in subsection (7)(a), by deleting the words “publish in a daily newspaper a” and replacing them by the words “give public”.
This modification eliminated the necessity, by law, to publish yearly the names of all those who had been removed permanently from voter registers in Gazette and newspapers, and instead decreed that said names would be posted, at the Electoral Commissioner’s discretion, either in Gazette, newspaper, or “in electronic form or through any other technological means or in such other manner as the Commission or Electoral Commissioner may determine.” And this, apparently, without ever needing to tell us where they have indeed been published. I for one have never seen any of these said lists, ever. Not once since the amendment was made.
Therefore, I think it is about time that we see those lists: from every single year since the amendment was passed. If nothing else, to begin to ensure the integrity of our voter registers. Voter registers for which today, and until proven otherwise, I have absolutely no faith in at all.
**Source Finance Bill 2016:
https://www.mra.mu/download/FinanceAct2016.pdf
