“Neither a minister nor a junior minister is appointed to boost their ego; their role is to fulfill their constitutional duties”

Qs & As

‘Ambiguous roles for ministers and junior ministers can lead to inefficiency and policy paralysis’

By Lex

The recent public dispute between Minister Arianne Navarre-Marie and Junior Minister Anishta Babooram has drawn attention to the constitutional roles of these positions in Mauritius. Section 66 of the Constitution specifies that Junior Ministers are appointed to “assist Ministers,” a mandate that seems to clash with the open conflict. This situation raises important questions about the distribution of tasks, the definition of “assistance,” and the ultimate authority within a ministry. It highlights a potential lack of clarity in the government’s hierarchy and division of power. Lex looks into the constitutional provisions, the conflict, and its broader implications for the government’s internal dynamics.

* The Constitution of Mauritius specifically addresses the post of Junior Minister in Section 66. What does your reading of that Section inform you about the relationship between a Junior Minister and a Minister? Is it one of opposition, or rather one of collaboration and assistance?

Section 66(1) of the Constitution makes it clear that Junior Ministers are appointed to assist ministers in the performance of their duties. Their primary role is to support and work alongside the designated minister within a specific government department. This assistance can involve various tasks, including policy formulation, implementation, and representing the ministry’s interests. Similar to ministers, Junior Minsters are required to take an oath of allegiance before the President of the Republic before they can assume their responsibilities.

The oath, which is prescribed in the Third Schedule of the Constitution, reads:

I, ………………………………………………., being appointed …Junior Minister, do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will to the best of my judgment, at all times when so required, freely give my counsel and advice to the President (or any other person for the time being lawfully performing the functions of that office) for the good management of the public affairs of Mauritius, and I do further swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will not on any account, at any time whatsoever, disclose the counsel, advice, opinion or vote of any particular Minister or Junior Minister and that I will not, except with the authority of the Cabinet and to such extent as may be required for the good management of the affairs of Mauritius, directly or indirectly reveal the business or proceedings of the Prime Minister/Minister/Junior Minister or any matter coming to my knowledge in my capacity as such and that in all things I will be a true and faithful Prime Minister/Minister/Junior Minister. (So, help me God.)

A junior minister must faithfully adhere to the spirit of the oath.

* The public dispute between Junior Minister Anishta Babooram and Minister Arianne Navarre Marie over the Junior Minister’s duties raises an important question: Does this incident show that the responsibilities of junior ministers are unclear? If so, how can we fix this to avoid future conflicts?

A minister should work in collaboration and respect with a junior minister, rather than directing or giving orders. Whenever a minister requests a junior minister to handle a matter, the junior minister should not take offence but should cooperate. Neither a minister nor a junior minister is appointed to boost their ego; their role is to fulfill their constitutional duties.

* Given the constitutional mandate for Junior Ministers to “assist Ministers,” does the Constitution or any law define what constitutes “assistance” versus “executive authority”?

The role of a junior minister has never been explicitly or completely detailed. That would be very difficult to do. That is why the Constitution uses the general term “assist.” It is understood, however, that they should assist ministers. How this assistance is carried out depends largely on the relationship between the minister and their junior minister.

* How does the role of a Junior Minister constitutionally differ from that of a Private Parliamentary Secretary (PPS), particularly given that both roles are often held by government backbenchers and have been subject to public discussion regarding their function and purpose?

A Private Parliamentary Secretary (PPS) was not attached to any ministry and worked only to coordinate projects for the government’s National Development Unit (NDU) at the constituency level, as explained by Ahmed Iqbal Khan in an article in l’Express on October 30, 2023. He also quotes constitutional lawyer Milan Meertarban, who stated, “The role of the PPS is much more political.” According to former president of the Republic and ex-speaker of the National Assembly Kailash Purryag, “Each PPS is/was supposed to oversee development projects, such as road and drain construction, in an average of two constituencies. That is/was their role.”

* Does this public quarrel highlight a lack of clarity in the distribution of tasks and powers between Ministers and Junior Ministers across the government?

It was ill-advised for the junior minister to make public allegations against the minister. Ministers and junior ministers are human beings with their own strengths, weaknesses, and egos, but once they assume political office, personal considerations should be set aside. If the junior minister felt that the minister was not treating her properly, she should first and foremost have seen the Prime Minister to discuss the matter with him. Other junior ministers are working in close collaboration with their respective ministers without any complaints.

A conflict of this nature often results from a combination of factors, including personal egos. While it is possible this played a major role, only the Minister and the Junior Minister involved can know the full details.

* It is known at this stage what is the Prime Minister’s position on this open conflict within his cabinet, and what actions he is taking to restore order. Could this dispute be a sign of deeper tensions within the ruling alliance, or an isolated personality conflict?

A single personal disagreement from a junior minister is unlikely to destabilize the government. The conflict might be a sign of a deeper issue, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the cohesion is not there anymore

* How does the Prime Minister’s role as the leader of the cabinet and head of the government’s alliance play into resolving this dispute?

In the event of a conflict between a minister and a junior minister, the Prime Minister’s role is to mediate and resolve the disagreement. This is essential to ensure the government functions effectively and maintains a united front. This process often involves clarifying roles, facilitating communication, and, if necessary, making a final decision.

* What is the potential impact of this public quarrel on the ruling alliance’s cohesion and public image?

At this stage, there appears to be little public reaction. The full extent of the public response remains to be seen.

* Given the public nature of this dispute, what formal or informal mechanisms do other Commonwealth countries, such as the UK, Australia, or Canada, use to resolve or mediate conflicts between senior and junior ministers, and could a similar process be implemented in Mauritius?

In Commonwealth countries, resolving disputes between ministers and junior ministers typically involves a hierarchical structure, with the Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary playing key roles. The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of ministerial conduct and can impose sanctions for breaches of the “Ministerial Code”.

If a dispute arises between a minister and a junior minister, it should first be addressed within the department, with the minister ultimately responsible for resolving it. If the issue remains unresolved, the matter is then escalated to the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister.

* Beyond the immediate conflict, what are the long-term implications for governance in Mauritius if the roles of ministers and junior ministers remain ambiguous?

While the personal responsibility of each minister and junior minister to avoid or manage conflict is important, a system that relies solely on individual discretion — rather than clear, established rules — is inherently vulnerable to personality clashes and inconsistent governance, which ultimately creates the very problems it seeks to avoid.

Without clear guidelines, ambiguous roles for ministers and junior ministers can lead to inefficiency and policy paralysis, as tasks may be duplicated or fall through the cracks. This constant tug-of-war over responsibilities hinders the effective formulation and implementation of policies.

Furthermore, this ambiguity creates a significant lack of accountability; when roles are unclear, it becomes difficult to assign responsibility for a policy’s success or failure, allowing ministers and the junior ministers to avoid blame and leading to a decline in performance standards. Such internal friction and a disunited front can ultimately erode public trust in the government’s ability to manage the country effectively.

Ultimately, this lack of clarity can undermine the hierarchical structure of the government, challenging the authority of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and leading to a breakdown in discipline and coherent decision-making.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 8 August 2025