Dissecting the LGSC Dismissals and the Politics of Recruitment

Jobs for Votes?

Qs & As

* ‘Without a clear link between the recruitment and electoral inducement, establishing a breach of electoral law remains a high bar’

By Lex

Last week, the Local Government Service Commission (LGSC) terminated the employment of 1,463 workers — mostly refuse collectors — who had been recruited shortly before the last general elections. The Minister of Local Government, citing the State Law Office, described the recruitment as “illegal and abusive.” The mass dismissals have since triggered heated debate, raising several critical questions: Was the original recruitment process legal and procedurally sound? Were the dismissals conducted fairly and in accordance with employment law? And does the recruitment raise concerns under electoral law?

Lex steps in to clarify these complex and overlapping legal issues. Drawing from constitutional principles, labour law, electoral jurisprudence, and precedent — including the landmark Lallah Report of 1983 — Lex sheds light on what lies behind the controversy, what the law demands, and where political rhetoric must give way to legal reasoning.

* Last week, the LGSC dismissed 1,463 recently hired workers — mainly refuse collectors — recruited shortly before elections by the previous government. The mass terminations have stirred public controversy, prompting key questions: Was the initial recruitment lawful and procedurally sound? Were these dismissals carried out with due process, including proper notice, a chance for defence, and access to appeal? What’s your view?

The recruitment was carried out under rather suspicious circumstances. The authority to recruit personnel in the local government services rests with the Local Government Service Commission (LGSC). According to media reports, the workers in question were recruited almost on the eve of the last general election.

The recruitment procedure in local government services is well established. When vacancies arise, the Responsible Officers of the respective Local Authorities report these vacancies to the Commission and recommend how they should be filled. There are several permissible methods for filling vacancies. These may include advertisements restricted to: Officers or employees currently serving in a specific Municipal Town or City Council; Local Government Officers/employees in general; residents within a specific Municipal, District, or Village Council area, or the general public.

The advertisements are issued by the Responsible Officers, and applicants must submit their applications to the LGSC by the specified closing date and time.

The LGSC is responsible for processing applications and conducting the selection exercise. Based on the outcome, one or more suitable candidates may be appointed, depending on the number of vacancies available. The names of selected candidates are submitted in strict confidence to the Responsible Officer(s) of the relevant Local Authority, who is normally expected to issue the offer letter within one week.

Once the offer is accepted, the Responsible Officer issues an LGSC Form 3 — an authority for payment — and submits a copy to the Commission.

The key question is whether this established procedure was followed in the case of the recently terminated workers. Only the LGSC can provide a definitive answer. Alternatively, clarity may emerge from the ongoing investigation reportedly being conducted by the Financial Services Commission.

* Reform Party leader Roshi Bhadain and former Labour Minister Soodesh Callichurn have advised the terminated employees to seek redress from the Supreme Court. What are the legal rights of the terminated employees? Are they entitled to any compensation or other forms of redress?

Employment law is a highly complex field, governed by numerous statutes, regulations, and remuneration orders. Caution is essential before making statements tinged with political overtones. Those commenting on the alleged illegality of the terminations must carefully examine the terms of the employment contracts and identify the applicable legal framework. Redress in cases of termination does not lie in the sweeping declarations of politicians — who, more often than not, lack a proper understanding of employment law.

In Mauritius, the termination of employment is governed by specific legal provisions, most notably the Workers’ Rights Act 2019. Employers must comply with these regulations to safeguard employees’ rights and avoid legal repercussions. A proper understanding of notice periods, severance entitlements, valid grounds for termination, and procedural requirements is critical for any employer operating in the country.

In the case of the dismissed workers, their contracts reportedly stated they were employed on a day-to-day basis. This raises important questions: Did the contracts include a clause requiring notice prior to termination? Or were they silent on the matter, thereby granting the employer unchecked discretion to terminate at will? These aspects must be thoroughly analysed before drawing any conclusions.

* Would it not be easier for the former LGSC board to provide evidence — at least on paper — that the initial recruitment process, even if large-scale, was transparent, with widely advertised job openings and fair application of proper selection criteria, than for the current LGSC board and the FCC to prove illegality?

Since the former members of the LGSC are no longer in office, it may be difficult for them to access any relevant documents — if such records still exist. Investigators from the FCC may uncover documentation that could confirm whether proper recruitment procedures were followed. However, it is more likely that the recruitment was carried out hastily in the run-up to the general elections.

* While the recruitment of workers by local government bodies shortly before elections in Mauritius carries a significant risk of being perceived as illegal electoral inducement, would proving such illegality based solely on timing be a difficult task?

There is little doubt that the recruitment was politically motivated, likely intended to sway voters. However, whether this constitutes a violation of electoral law — specifically on the grounds of treating — is another matter.

Under established legal precedent, including the Ashock Jugnauth case, it must be proven that a candidate, in ordering or facilitating such recruitment, directly sought to persuade individuals to vote for him.

In the absence of clear, direct evidence showing that the recruitment influenced voters’ decisions, it would be futile to pursue claims of bribery or treating. Courts require a high standard of proof to establish that such actions materially affected the outcome of an election.

* What additional evidence would likely be needed to establish a violation of electoral law?

As previously noted, it must be proven that any promise or act of recruitment was made by a candidate in exchange for votes. However, it is important to recognise that in most cases — including election petitions — direct evidence is rarely available. This is why courts may rely on circumstantial evidence and draw reasonable inferences from the facts presented.

That said, courts tend to place greater weight on direct evidence when determining whether a promise or recruitment constitutes bribery or treating, and whether such actions had a tangible influence on voters. Without a clear link between the recruitment and electoral inducement, establishing a breach of electoral law remains a high bar.

* The outgoing government might argue that these recruitments were legitimate social welfare measures aimed at alleviating unemployment, fulfilling their responsibility to citizens. However, our understanding is that the crucial point is whether the dominant intent behind the recruitments was genuine social welfare or an attempt to sway voters. Is this correct?

There is no doubt that recruitment can serve a humanitarian purpose — namely, to alleviate hardship and provide employment opportunities. However, in pursuing such aims, the law must not be violated. There are lawful and transparent mechanisms available to achieve these objectives without undermining legal procedures or public trust.

* Former Chief Justice Rajsoomer Lallah chaired a 1983 commission that examined the “Recruitment of Community Service Workers” prior to the 1982 elections. What general principles or recommendations from the Lallah report might be relevant in assessing the legality of the LGSC’s pre-election hiring practices, particularly regarding transparency, fairness, and the potential for undue influence?

There is little doubt that the recruitment of 21,000 workers on the eve of the 1982 general elections was a politically motivated move intended to sway voters. Ultimately, the Labour Party lost that election. But one is left to wonder: had any Labour candidate been elected, would the Supreme Court of that time have upheld the result? How might the Privy Council have viewed such a case? These questions remain speculative, but they underscore a critical issue — where politics and electoral law intersect, motive and timing matter greatly.

When those 21,000 workers were summarily dismissed following the election of the MMM-PSM alliance, led by Sir Anerood Jugnauth — who would later go on to form the MSM — there was little public outcry. Few, if any, lawyers or political figures described it as “chagrinant.” In stark contrast, today’s discourse surrounding the termination of local government employees is marked by political and legal posturing that borders on hypocrisy.

It is worth recalling what the late Chief Justice declared in his landmark report, where he found such pre-election recruitment to be unlawful. He condemned the practice not because of its outcomes, but because of the inherent impropriety of the act itself — regardless of whether an elector was actually influenced to vote for the candidate responsible.

Chief Justice Lallah further stressed that elections must be genuinely free. By this, he meant that when a voter enters the sanctum of the polling booth, their conscience must be clear — not clouded by thoughts such as, “I got a job thanks to Mr X; would it be right to vote against him?” Electoral law explicitly prohibits such practices and provides for the invalidation of the election of a candidate found guilty of them.

As we consider the events of today, any review of our electoral laws on treating and promises must be guided by the principles laid out in the Lallah Report of 1983 — a foundational document that still speaks with clarity to the dangers of blurring the line between state resources and electoral advantage.

* On the other hand, while the Representation of the People Act likely covers bribery and undue influence, we may also need to consider the Privy Council’s ruling in Suren Dayal v. Pravind Jugnauth, which clarified that for something to count as bribery, there must be a clear deal between the candidate and the voter — where something of value is given in exchange for a vote. Can it be proved there had been any deal involved between LGSC and hired employees?

How can such claims be proven? Would any candidate openly confess to ordering recruitment in exchange for votes? That is simply absurd. Moreover, what if the MSM had won the election? Could the losing party have successfully contested the results without clear evidence that recruitment was used to sway voters? The likelihood is very slim.

Regarding treating and bribery, the Privy Council has effectively allowed sitting governments to make numerous promises before polling day and include them in their electoral manifestos — without fear of being accused of bribery or treating. Such promises are considered a permissible part of electoral campaigning.

What the new government should focus on, therefore, is reviewing and strengthening our electoral laws to make it more difficult for candidates to offer promises or take actions that might unduly influence voters, either before the election or during the campaign period.

* Public attention usually focuses on the recruitment of lower-ranking employees due to the large numbers hired, such as before the 1982 or 2024 elections. However, we hear far less about the recruitment of higher-level positions in the lead-up to elections — sometimes allegedly based on quid pro quo arrangements — and the dismissals if at all that does happen following a change in government. Should similar standards of transparency and accountability apply to both high- and low-level appointments?

Those recruited to high-level positions are a minority and typically view a promotion as a genuine reward, making it unnecessary to sway their votes. While timing may raise questions, if all procedural requirements are properly followed, proving treating would be difficult.

The situation is more complex for low-level workers, who often see securing a job as a gift that creates an obligation to vote for their benefactors — exactly as Chief Justice Lallah highlighted. This dynamic makes the risk of undue influence far greater in such cases.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 23 May 2025