The Tourism Bazar: Collective Responsibility Under Fire

Qs & As

‘Publicly labelling a ministry as a “bazar”… would generally be regarded as a serious breach of the principle of Cabinet collective responsibility’

By Lex

The public clash between DPM Paul Bérenger and Tourism Minister Richard Duval has moved beyond headlines into the realm of constitutional crisis. When a Ministry is labelled a “bazar” and dismissal letters for top officials are issued, recalled, and then modified within days, it is no longer just an administrative error — it is a challenge to our system of government.

At the heart of this saga is the doctrine of Collective Ministerial Responsibility. In the Westminster tradition, Cabinet must present a united front; internal disagreements stay behind closed doors. Yet, with senior ministers trading barbs in the press, we must ask: where does a Minister’s individual authority end and Cabinet’s collective oversight begin?

The confusion surrounding the grounds for these dismissals — shifting from “sexual harassment” to “precautionary measures” — also raises serious questions about due process and legal liability. Can a Minister act unilaterally on parastatal boards, or is Cabinet consultation mandatory?

In this week’s column, Lex dissects the legal fallout, the limits of Prime Ministerial intervention, and whether Cabinet solidarity is being sacrificed on the altar of coalition politics.

* Is the public rift between DPM Paul Bérenger and Minister Richard Duval more than just a political spat? It appears to be a direct challenge to the constitutional principle of collective responsibility, a cornerstone of the Westminster model in a democratic state?

Yes, criticisms by one minister against another — especially when made in public — are generally considered a direct challenge to the constitutional principle of collective responsibility, a foundational convention of the Westminster system.

* Does publicly labelling a ministry a ‘bazar’ fatally undermine Cabinet unity? At what point do these public attacks cross the line, leaving resignation as the only constitutional way out?

Publicly labelling a ministry as a “bazar” — implying it is a place of chaos, disorganisation, or even impropriety — would generally be regarded as a serious breach of the principle of Cabinet collective responsibility, and one that can fundamentally undermine Cabinet unity and stability.

Such attacks reveal internal disagreements on government policy, or erode public confidence in the collective authority of the government. In Westminster practice, the constitutionally proper course is then either to retract the remarks and reaffirm support for Cabinet decisions, or to resign.

* Does the public disclosure of Cabinet discussions — specifically those regarding the Tourism Authority — seriously undermine the ‘safe space’ required for government decision-making? What are the legal implications of such a breach?

Public disclosure of Cabinet discussions by a minister — commonly referred to as a “leak” — constitutes a breach of the constitutional conventions of Cabinet confidentiality and collective responsibility. Such disclosures are considered to undermine the efficiency and integrity of government, with consequences that may range from political damage to calls for immediate resignation and, in extreme cases, legal repercussions.
In Mauritius, the leaking of Cabinet deliberations by a minister may also fall within the scope of the Official Secrets Act, as Cabinet members are bound both by the oath of confidentiality and by the principle of collective responsibility.

* Does Cabinet secrecy cover everything the government does, or just major policies? Should the firing of board members at a parastatal be protected by the same rules of confidentiality?

Cabinet secrecy does not cover everything the government does; rather, it primarily applies to the deliberations, documents, and decision-making processes of the Cabinet and its committees. While it is sometimes perceived as a blanket of silence, Cabinet confidentiality is intended to protect discussions so as to allow for robust debate, consensus-building, and the preservation of collective responsibility.

In Mauritius, the dismissal of board members of a semi-public (parastatal) body by the Cabinet is generally considered a Cabinet matter while it is under deliberation. However, the final decision becomes part of the public record once it is officially announced, typically through the Cabinet Highlights.

* On the other hand, what is the proper constitutional and administrative procedure for dismissing board members of a statutory body like the Tourism Authority? Does the law grant a Minister unilateral power to act, or must such decisions be collectively ratified by the Cabinet?

The dismissal of board members of a statutory body is a rigorous legal process that must adhere strictly to the enabling legislation — that is, the specific Act that created the body — as well as to the principles of natural justice, in order to avoid claims of unlawful dismissal.

Statutory directors occupy a particular legal position, often requiring a careful balancing between corporate law principles governing removal and administrative law requirements relating to due process, notice, and cause.

* To what extent does a minister have discretion to take administrative decisions within his or her own portfolio without prior Cabinet approval?

In Mauritius, the constitutional framework is rooted in the Westminster system, which operates on the principle of collective responsibility. While individual Ministers exercise authority over their respective ministries, major policy decisions and significant actions are generally expected to be collectively ratified by the Cabinet, which is often described as the “supreme authority for taking policy decisions for the Government.”

In Westminster-style systems of government, the law may grant Ministers unilateral authority to act on specific administrative or statutory matters. However, the exercise of such powers is typically constrained by the constitutional convention of Cabinet collective responsibility.

* Under the Mauritian Constitution and Westminster tradition, can the Prime Minister intervene to reverse or “recall” a dismissal decision taken by a minister?

Under the Mauritian Constitution, which is based on the Westminster system, the Prime Minister (PM) exercises overarching authority over the other ministers. While individual ministers may hold specific statutory powers to appoint or dismiss staff, the PM, as Head of Government, can in practice intervene, reverse, or instruct a minister to reconsider or rescind a dismissal decision — often by invoking the principle of collective responsibility or by signalling the possibility of a Cabinet reshuffle or the minister’s dismissal.

* Does the Deputy Prime Minister have any formal constitutional authority to intervene in another minister’s department, or is such intervention essentially political?

The Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) in Mauritius does not possess independent or formal constitutional authority to intervene in the affairs of another minister’s department.

The DPM performs the functions of the Prime Minister only when formally designated as Acting Prime Minister in the event of the Prime Minister’s absence or inability to act.

* If dismissal letters are issued and later withdrawn under changing allegations, could this expose the State or the Tourism Authority to legal challenges for abuse of power or administrative fault (faute)?

Issuing and subsequently withdrawing dismissal letters based on changing allegations could strongly expose the State or the Tourism Authority in Mauritius to legal challenges. Such actions may amount to unfair dismissal under the Workers’ Rights Act 2019, as they risk violating principles of procedural fairness and may even raise concerns about abuse of power under constitutional principles.

* The shift from allegations of “sexual harassment” levelled against the former chairman of the Tourism Authority to “workplace harassment” (confirmed as a “precautionary measure” rather than a formal charge) suggests that the grounds for the initial dismissals were legally or factually shaky, leading to the Prime Minister’s intervention to recall the letters. Is a “precautionary measure” at a police station sufficient legal grounds to suspend a public official — whether it’s the chairman of the board or a senior member of the management of a parastatal body –, or could this undermine the security of tenure in public office?

A “precautionary measure” statement at a Mauritian police station — essentially a unilateral, unverified report used to document threats or potential incidents rather than to establish a criminal charge — is generally insufficient on its own to justify the suspension of a public official. Suspension typically requires formal charges, a police investigation, or evidence of misconduct, rather than merely the filing of a complaint.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 12 March 2026