Justice Under Scrutiny: Upholding Independence, Integrity, and the Rule of Law

‘The judiciary’s best defence against declining trust is to restore trust through transparent conduct and institutional reform’

Qs & As

By Lex

Public trust in the judiciary is the cornerstone of any functioning democracy. In a closely knit society like Mauritius, where personal, professional, and political networks often overlap, the independence of our courts is constantly tested. Recent Afrobarometer findings, which suggest a significant decline in public confidence, have sparked an urgent debate about the resilience of our legal institutions. As the Constitutional Review Commission begins its critical work, we must confront the systemic challenges — from the composition of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission to the role of commissions of inquiry — that threaten to compromise the impartiality of our judges and magistrates. This analysis explores the path forward, emphasising the need for institutional reform and the unwavering defence of the rule of law.

* In small, tightly knit societies like ours where ‘everyone knows everyone,’ suspicion inevitably arises regarding the use of personal, communal, professional, or political connections — or membership in fraternal societies — to secure favourable legal outcomes. How can we ensure that our magistrates and judges remain truly insulated from such influences and continue to dispense justice without fear or favour?

To protect judges and magistrates from local pressures, the system needs clear rules, strict recusal policies, and independent oversight to ensure they remain impartial rather than influenced by personal or community networks. Additionally, a government must ensure that promotions and appointments are handled by an independent, non-partisan Judicial Service Commission rather than political appointees to prevent reciprocal obligations.

In fact, the Mackay Report recommended broadening the composition of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC). Adding external representatives — such as a nominee from the Bar Council or independent members from outside the traditional judicial establishment — would enhance public confidence in judicial appointments.

* What happens when a magistrate or judge is nevertheless subjected to pressure — whether from politicians or the senior administrative cadre acting under the direction of political hierarchies? Who protects the judge, and is this protection effective in practice?

In most democratic systems, independent Judicial Service Commissions are empowered to handle judicial appointments, transfers, and disciplinary actions, which insulates judges from political whim.

However, when judges or magistrates face political pressure, they typically experience threats to their case assignments, promotions, or job security. While independent judicial service commissions, constitutional immunities, and appellate courts are the formal bodies designed to protect them, these safeguards are only effective if the broader political and legal culture respects the rule of law.

* Within the current constitutional framework, are there safeguards — such as the role of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission or the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions — that should be strengthened to better protect the judiciary from executive interference?

The Constitution of Mauritius establishes a robust separation of powers and protects judicial independence. However, existing safeguards — particularly regarding the composition of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) and the scope of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)’s powers — should be strengthened to better insulate the judiciary from executive interference.

* The 2024 Afrobarometer survey reports that public trust in the courts has fallen from 79% in 2012 to 56% in 2024, with 67% of respondents perceiving corruption among judicial officers. Do you consider these findings to be a meaningful indicator, or merely a snapshot of perceptions? Given the potential threat to democratic stability, can we afford to leave this trend unaddressed?

Afrobarometer surveys serve as critical barometers of public opinion. Their findings in Mauritius reflect both a snapshot of immediate public sentiment and a meaningful indicator of broader systemic issues.

However, perceptions of judicial corruption and political influence are often shaped by controversial rulings, public scandals, and media reporting rather than direct, personal experience with bribery.

Furthermore, since only a minority of the population participates, the survey — which does not reach a representative cross-section of the entire citizenry — should be interpreted with a degree of reservation.

* If the judiciary were perceived as ‘for sale’ rather than impartial, what would be the resulting legal and social consequences?

When a judiciary — whether here or abroad — is perceived as “for sale,” it directly subverts the constitutional separation of powers and threatens the country’s democratic stability. This perception causes devastating breakdowns in both the legal framework and the social fabric. Court judgments lose their legitimacy, shifting the judiciary’s role from that of an impartial arbiter of the Constitution to an instrument that protects vested political and financial interests.

When legal outcomes are believed to be determined by bribery rather than merit, citizens and businesses lose faith in the justice system’s ability to protect their rights. Consequently, legal filings decline as people begin to view formal courts as a waste of time and money.

* To what extent do barriers such as legal costs, delays, complex procedures, and inaccessible language contribute to the belief that justice mainly serves the powerful? Should reform focus more on improving access or strengthening institutional integrity?

Barriers such as high costs, long delays, complex procedures, and dense legal jargon reinforce the perception that justice serves only the powerful. These hurdles make the system inaccessible to ordinary citizens, preventing them from enforcing their rights.

High fees and court expenses inherently favour those with deep pockets, while backlogged dockets mean cases can drag on for years. The wealthy can absorb these delays, but the vulnerable often suffer severe financial and emotional setbacks.

Furthermore, archaic procedural requirements force citizens to hire lawyers, increasing the cost of legal recourse. Ultimately, the use of confusing legal language and complicated paperwork alienates the public, making it difficult for people to understand their rights or navigate the system without expensive, specialized help.

* When Afrobarometer findings regarding public trust are released, the judiciary undoubtedly faces a difficult dilemma: remain silent to preserve the appearance of detachment or respond to mitigate the damage to its reputation. What is the best course of action?

Courts cannot — and should not — act like politicians responding to a poll. If the judiciary directly addresses public criticism or attempts to “spin” survey findings, it risks compromising the very impartiality the public is questioning. By entering the political fray to defend its image, judges abandon the foundational principle that courts speak only through their written judgments. Any perception that the bench is “campaigning” for public approval could further erode the dignity of the office.

The judiciary’s best defence against declining trust is to demonstrate, through its own conduct and administrative reforms, that it remains an impartial arbiter. Public confidence is not won through media releases but through the consistent, efficient, and transparent application of the law.

* The government has proposed the creation of a separate Constitutional Court and changes to the appointment of senior officials. How far would these reforms address concerns about political influence?

Proposals for a separate Constitutional Court and a Senior Officials’ Appointment Committee offer necessary institutional safeguards but are only a partial solution. Their effectiveness in curbing political influence fundamentally depends on how strictly the new mechanisms insulate judicial and administrative appointments from executive control.

Establishing a dedicated Constitutional Court removes final constitutional and human rights arbitrations from the existing Supreme Court framework. By specialized focus, it could expedite constitutional interpretation and dilute the concentration of judicial power.

* As the Constitutional Review Commission begins its work, what are the three most important reforms you would recommend to better safeguard judicial independence and public confidence over the next decade?

To protect judicial independence and restore public confidence, the three most critical reforms are implementing merit-based judicial appointments, establishing a local apex appellate court, and constitutionally insulating the DPP from political interference.

* Closely linked to public perceptions of judicial corruption are concerns regarding the integrity of arbitration boards and commissions of inquiry. There is growing apprehension that appointments to the chairmanships of these bodies could be leveraged by public or private interests to influence outcomes and secure favourable rulings. To what extent do you believe these mechanisms are susceptible to such manipulation?

In Mauritius, there is an ongoing debate regarding the appropriateness of sitting judges presiding over arbitration and commissions of inquiry, balancing the need for judicial expertise against the risk of conflicts of interest and the backlog of cases in the Supreme Court.

Those who favour having sitting judges chair commissions of inquiry argue that they are often appointed because they possess the legal training, impartiality, and investigative skills needed to handle sensitive, complex public matters. However, this argument is fallacious. Retired judges also possess the necessary experience and independence to chair such commissions. Furthermore, assigning these tasks to sitting judges keeps them away from their primary judicial duties. It can also drag the judiciary into the centre of political controversies, potentially threatening the public perception of judicial independence and exacerbating case backlogs in the Supreme Court.

As for arbitrations, there appears to be a strong consensus among legal professionals and the Bar Council that sitting judges should not act as private arbitrators. This creates potential conflicts of interest and blurs the line between public judicial functions and private practice. If this practice is still in force, it should be discontinued; as senior members of the Bar will attest, there are many retired judges who are capable of fulfilling these roles.

* At the end of the day, one should also acknowledge and salute the fact that there are magistrates and judges who will defend the rule of law against any form of injustice or political tyranny — as demonstrated by Magistrate Vidya Mungroo-Jugurnath’s scathing report on the Soopramanien Kistnen inquiry, and Justice Ah Foon Chui Yew Cheong’s intervention to stop the politically motivated arrest of former DPP Satyajit Boolell. There are, thankfully, “des juges à Berlin”…

Yes, the adage “il y a des juges à Berlin” continues to resonate in Mauritius, as the judiciary has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to act as a crucial check on executive and political overreach.

The Moka Court judicial inquiry led by Senior District Magistrate Vidya Mungroo-Jugurnath into the death of political activist Soopramanien Kistnen was a critical turning point. Despite the initial police stance, her scathing findings ruled out suicide and pointed toward foul play and a suspected political cover-up. This sent a strong message that independent magistrates will critically assess official narratives, ordering further inquiries into the actions of the police and political figures.

The intervention by Justice Ah Foon Chui Yew Cheong to halt the arrest of former DPP Satyajit Boolell similarly reinforced judicial independence. By annulling the politically motivated arrest warrants and demanding that the police and the Independent Commission Against Corruption explain their actions in open court, the Supreme Court illustrated that fundamental rights will be fiercely defended against potential state abuse.

The ability of Mauritian courts to stand firm against political pressure largely stems from a Constitution that guarantees the separation of powers. Independent institutions, such as the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the independence of the bench, play foundational roles in preserving democracy.

However, the application of this adage in Mauritius today is nuanced. While individual judges and magistrates have boldly defended the rule of law in high-profile cases, their rulings have also triggered severe institutional friction, such as contentious transfers and pushback from executive authorities. Nevertheless, the resilience of the judiciary remains a strong pillar of democracy, providing citizens with legal recourse when political institutions are suspected of faltering.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 19 June 2026