{"id":45881,"date":"2026-04-27T14:29:31","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T10:29:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/?p=45881"},"modified":"2026-04-27T14:29:31","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T10:29:31","slug":"deputy-prime-minister-the-office-should-not-remain-vacant-indefinitely","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/deputy-prime-minister-the-office-should-not-remain-vacant-indefinitely\/","title":{"rendered":"Deputy Prime Minister: ‘The office should not remain vacant indefinitely’"},"content":{"rendered":"

The PM\u2019s Prerogative vs The Democratic Spirit of the Constitution<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

Qs & As<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

By Lex<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Following the resignation of Paul B\u00e9renger in March 2026, the office of the Deputy Prime Minister has remained vacant, sparking a rigorous legal debate over the interpretation of Section 59(1) of the Constitution. This analysis by Lex explores whether the constitutional “shall” mandates an immediate appointment to prevent a succession vacuum, or if it merely outlines a structural framework that allows for a reasonable transition period.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

* Section 59(1) of the Constitution states: “There shall be a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister…”<\/em> In constitutional law, does the word “shall” impose an absolute duty to fill the post immediately, or does it merely describe the structure of a complete government?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In constitutional law, specifically regarding Section 59(1) of the Constitution of Mauritius, the word “shall”<\/strong> is generally interpreted as imposing an imperative duty<\/strong> rather than merely describing the structure of government. <\/span>
\nHowever, this duty is typically understood as requiring that the posts be filled within a reasonable time<\/strong> to ensure the proper functioning of the State, rather than necessitating the instantaneous<\/strong>, second-by-second filling of a post upon a vacancy.<\/span><\/p>\n

*\u00a0 Similar to the DPM, the Constitution says there “shall” be an Attorney General. If that post were vacant for a month, would your legal analysis be the same, or is the DPM post unique due to its succession function?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

While the Constitution of Mauritius dictates that there “shall”<\/strong> be an Attorney General (AG)<\/strong> [Section 69] and a Deputy Prime Minister (DPM)<\/strong> [Section 59], the legal analysis of a one-month vacancy for the AG post differs from that of the DPM post. This is because the DPM holds a unique, time-sensitive succession function<\/strong> that the AG does not — in other words, this means that the Deputy Prime Minister is next in line to take over if the Prime Minister is unable to lead, a critical role in maintaining stable leadership that the AG simply does not share.<\/span><\/p>\n

* In fact, Section 60(5) provides that the DPM performs the Prime Minister’s functions during the latter’s absence or illness. Without a DPM, does the Prime Minister have the unilateral power to designate any Minister to act in his stead, or does the absence of a DPM create a “succession vacuum”?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Under the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, the absence of a Deputy Prime Minister does not create a legal succession vacuum; while the Prime Minister does not have unilateral power to make this appointment, he possesses the authority to advise the President to appoint any other Minister to act in his stead.<\/span><\/p>\n

* Could a citizen or a Member of Parliament petition the Supreme Court to compel the Prime Minister to pick a new Deputy Prime Minister, or is the appointment of a DPM a “purely political” matter that the Judiciary would be reluctant to interfere with?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Under the Constitution of Mauritius, one could petition the Supreme Court to compel the Prime Minister to appoint a new Deputy Prime Minister (DPM); however, such a petition faces significant legal hurdles. Legal experts in Mauritius argue that the use of “shall” makes the appointment of a DPM a mandatory provision rather than a discretionary one, meaning the office should not remain vacant indefinitely.<\/span>
\nA citizen or Member of Parliament could argue that the Prime Minister is acting in breach of the Constitution by failing to appoint a DPM. Theoretically, the Court could issue a writ of mandamus — a judicial order compelling the PM to fulfil a legal duty — based on this constitutional requirement.<\/span><\/p>\n

* Mauritian political convention suggests that the office of the DPM is traditionally held by the leader of the junior partner in the governing alliance. Given that the MMM remains the second-largest party, would it be a departure from democratic norms to appoint a DPM from outside its ranks?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

While the MMM remains the second-largest party, it might be a departure from tradition not to appoint one of its members as Deputy Prime Minister (DPM). <\/span>
\nHowever, appointing a DPM from the Labour Party would not be considered unconstitutional or unparliamentary.<\/span><\/p>\n

* With Paul B\u00e9renger citing the Prime Minister\u2019s dual role as Finance Minister as a reason for his resignation, does the current vacancy of the DPM post — combined with the lack of a stand-alone Finance Minister — create a “concentration of power” that might be viewed as contrary to the democratic spirit of the Constitution?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Combining the roles of Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, a practice adopted by Dr Navin Ramgoolam after the November 2024 elections, remains a contentious tradition in Mauritius.<\/span><\/p>\n

Critics argue that this concentration of power threatens the Constitution\u2019s democratic safeguards. By reducing institutional checks and balances, the arrangement often shifts vital economic decision-making away from the necessary specialized oversight.<\/span><\/p>\n

*\u00a0 *\u00a0 *<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Bramer Bank Fraud
\nSentencing Disparities: Poverty, Wealth, and the Integrity of the Legal System<\/strong><\/u><\/span><\/h4>\n

As the DPP appeals for harsher penalties in the Bramer case, the Judiciary must decide if time-lapsed justice undermines the spirit of the FIAMLA. Lex explores whether small fines for multi-million rupee laundering offenses deter future white-collar crime or merely set a precedent that financial fraud is “profitable” even when caught.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

* Under Section 10 of the Constitution, every person is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. In the Bramer Banking Corporation fraud case, the offences date back to 2011. Legally, does a 15-year delay create a “right” to a lighter sentence, or is it merely a discretionary factor for the Magistrate?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

A 15-year delay is generally recognized as a severe impairment to justice, leading many jurisdictions to provide significant reductions in — or even the suspension of — custodial sentences. Legally, such a delay does not automatically create an absolute “right” to a lighter sentence; however, it serves as a powerful mitigating factor that courts frequently acknowledge as a basis for reducing a sentence.<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, a delay of this magnitude can be interpreted as a breach of constitutional rights — specifically the right to a trial within a reasonable time — which may compel an appellate court to reduce a sentence as a form of compensation.<\/span><\/p>\n

* How do past rulings help judges decide when a long delay by the authorities should lead to a reduced sentence for a serious financial crime?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Judicial precedents guide courts in determining whether a prolonged delay by authorities warrants a sentence reduction for serious financial crimes. These rulings establish that an “inordinate” or “unreasonable” delay — provided it is not caused by the defendant — functions as a mitigating factor.<\/span><\/p>\n

Through case law, it is well-settled that sentencing judges retain the discretion to reduce or even suspend a custodial sentence to ensure the interests of justice are met. However, these rulings also emphasize that the gravity of financial crimes necessitates punishment; consequently, any reduction for delay must be balanced so as not to be excessive or undermine the principle of general deterrence.<\/span><\/p>\n

* In his appeal against the judgement, the DPP argues that these sentences harm the “integrity of the financial sector.” Legally, does the need to keep the country’s reputation “clean” matter more than the personal circumstances of the person being sentenced?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Legally, the personal circumstances of an offender generally carry more weight in sentencing than a broad interest in maintaining a “clean” national reputation. Justice systems prioritize proportionality relative to the crime and the offender\u2019s culpability. <\/span>
\nHowever, in cases of high-profile corruption or foreign bribery, courts may place a higher premium on deterrence to safeguard national integrity. Regardless of how a crime impacts a country’s reputation, prisoners and the accused must be treated with dignity, ensuring that punishment never descends into inhuman treatment.<\/span><\/p>\n

* One of the defendants escaped prison partly by paying Rs 1.9 million to the liquidator. This suggests a troubling disparity: if a defendant can afford to pay, they receive a fine; if they cannot, they go to jail. Is this true “restitution,” or is it simply a way for the wealthy to avoid the harshest punishments?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Restitution is compensation paid directly to the victim for damages, whereas fines are punitive payments made to the state. When an accused individual cannot afford a fine, they are often incarcerated. For a wealthy person, even a large fine may function merely as a “business expense,” allowing them to escape the stigma and loss of freedom associated with prison.<\/span><\/p>\n

Conversely, if a defendant cannot afford to pay, a court may revoke their probation and sentence them to prison. Critics argue that this practice effectively jails individuals for their poverty rather than the crime itself.<\/span><\/p>\n

* There was a debate regarding one of the defendant’s previous 2018 fraud conviction and a subsequent presidential pardon. If someone is pardoned for a past crime, does the judge have to treat them as if they have a perfectly clean record?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

No, a judge is not required to treat a pardoned person as if they have a perfectly clean record. While a pardon forgives the crime and restores civil rights, it does not erase the conviction from the person’s criminal history; consequently, the facts of the case can often be considered by a judge in future proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n

* In an appeal against “undue leniency,” will the Supreme Court re-evaluate the facts of the 2011 fraud, or will they strictly limit their review to the principles the Magistrate used to determine the sentences?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal against “undue leniency” in a financial crime case, an appellate court generally does not re-evaluate the facts of the underlying fraud; instead, it limits its review to the principles the trial court used to determine the sentence. Rather than acting as a trier of fact, the court focuses on whether the trial magistrate committed errors in law or applied incorrect sentencing principles. <\/span>
\nSpecifically, the appellate court checks whether the sentencing judge considered relevant aggravating or mitigating factors, adhered to mandatory sentencing guidelines, or failed to properly weigh the severity of the financial crime.<\/span><\/p>\n

* For a laundering offense involving Rs 80 million, is a fine of Rs 1.3 million consistent with the spirit of the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act (FIAMLA), or does it set a precedent that money laundering can be “profitable” even if caught?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

A fine of Rs 1.3 million for large-scale money laundering is generally considered inconsistent with the spirit of the FIAMLA. Such a low penalty relative to high laundered amounts risks being viewed as a “cost of doing business,” thereby undermining the FATF-compliant legal framework designed to punish, deter, and strip profits from financial crimes.<\/span><\/p>\n

The spirit of FIAMLA aims to combat money laundering rigorously by focusing on the confiscation of proceeds and penalizing offenders heavily to maintain the integrity of the financial system.<\/span><\/p>\n

* If the Supreme Court increases these sentences, what does it signal to the Financial Crimes Commission (FCC) and other investigative bodies currently dealing with long-standing “cold cases” from the previous decade?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It will signal a strong shift toward stricter accountability, acting as a directive to the FCC<\/strong> and other investigative bodies to pursue “cold cases” with renewed vigour and higher severity expectations.<\/span><\/p>\n

Such an increase would signal to investigative bodies that the judiciary views financial crimes as serious threats to public order, moving away from lenient, non-custodial penalties toward custodial sentences for white-collar crimes.<\/span><\/p>\n

* Finally, does a monetary penalty for a laundering conviction send the wrong signal to international regulators?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, relying primarily on monetary penalties for money laundering convictions can send the wrong signal to international regulators; it is often interpreted as “liquidity before compliance” or a mere cost of doing business rather than serious enforcement. <\/span>
\nWhile massive fines are designed to punish and deter, they sometimes fail to ensure the personal accountability for executives that international bodies, such as the FATF, emphasize as necessary for an effective anti-money laundering (AML) regime.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 24 April 2026<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The PM\u2019s Prerogative vs The Democratic Spirit of the Constitution<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":198,"featured_media":45882,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[5268],"tags":[966,4634,61016,61010,1103,3396,61018,2536,49339,3744,45522,61015,60717,44805,55734,26872,61012,4857,7426,1095,20341,30258,26871,12330,43505,2936,25878,5533,15628,61017,18568,34605,61020,119,36,8636,61009,814,4475,61013,61014,61021,61022,61011,1187,4962,57518,60757,29749,54523,61008,38927,2026,61019,9081,9479],"class_list":["post-45881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-justice","tag-accountability","tag-alliance","tag-appeal","tag-appellate-court","tag-attorney-general","tag-authority","tag-bramer-fraud-case","tag-checks-and-balances","tag-concentration-of-power","tag-constitution","tag-conviction","tag-criminal-history","tag-delay","tag-democratic-norms","tag-deputy-prime-minister","tag-deterrence","tag-discretion","tag-fair-hearing","tag-fatf","tag-fiamla","tag-finance-minister","tag-financial-crimes","tag-fines","tag-governance","tag-imprisonment","tag-inequality","tag-integrity","tag-judiciary","tag-justice","tag-leniency","tag-lex","tag-magistrate","tag-mandamus","tag-mauritius","tag-mauritius-times","tag-minister","tag-mitigating-factor","tag-mmm","tag-money-laundering","tag-offender","tag-pardon","tag-petition","tag-political-convention","tag-precedent","tag-president","tag-prime-minister","tag-proportionality","tag-reasonable-time","tag-reputation","tag-restitution","tag-sentencing","tag-succession","tag-supreme-court","tag-vacancy","tag-wealth","tag-westminster-model"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Assemble.gif?fit=1200%2C906&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8QzSF-bW1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45881","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/198"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45881"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45881\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":45883,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45881\/revisions\/45883"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/45882"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}