The Supreme Court has ordered to delete two extracts from the report of the commission of inquiry into drugs against lawyer Shameer Hussenbocus. This judgment was delivered on Tuesday June 4, 2024 by Judges Iqbal Maghooa and Sulakshna Beekarry-Sunassee.

Me Shameer Hussenbocus had obtained authorization to request a judicial review of the extracts from this report which concerns him. The commission of inquiry was chaired by former judge Paul Lam Shang Leen. His assessors included former minister Sam Lauthan and Dr Ravind Kumar Domun.

The contested passages are on page 235 of the report and set out several allegations against the lawyer. It is written that from March 19 to 23, 2016, the lawyer used a SIM card to communicate with prisoners in Beau-Bassin and Petit-Verger. There was also talk of the acquisition of land “out of sight of the notary” and large deposits in his bank account, which did not correspond to his declared income.

Additionally, the report mentioned that the lawyer had visited a prisoner convicted of drug trafficking in 2014 even though he had not been invited to do so. Later, the inmate said she had been threatened for not testifying against another drug trafficker.

The lawyer challenged these conclusions, citing in particular abuse of power, violation of natural justice and lack of evidence.

In their conclusions, the judges noted that regarding the purchase of land, the sum of Rs 5.6 million was paid at the sight of the notary. Which is contrary to what was written in the report. The judges also note that the lawyer did not have the opportunity to defend himself against allegations that he communicated on several occasions with detainees. It was using a SIM card registered in the name of Dominique Patrick Herode Kan Chai. He had been involved in a drug offense. However, the judges did not see fit to remove the other comments from the report against the lawyer.

The judges specify that “the terms of the Commission of Inquiry do not extend to the determination of criminal liability but provide inter alia for the Commission to make recommendations as appropriate on any other matter connected with, or relevant or incidental to the specific terms of reference . We see no reason to interfere with the recommendation made by the Commission as it is not final”.

Leave a reply below

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Contact Business

Captcha Code