Maneesh Gobin: “la question concernant la constitutionalité de l’article en question porte sur le ‘Principle of legality’, et non la liberté d’expression”



Press Release – Attorney General’s Office

Le Bureau de l’Attorney General tient à faire ressortir que le jugement de la Cour suprême rendu le 27 mai 2021, dans le cas de ‘Seegum v The State of Mauritius’ (2021 SCJ 162), concerne l’article 46 (h) (ii) sous l’Information and Communication Technologies Act de 2001, et non l’article 46 (h) (ii) amendé en 2018.

Le Bureau de l’Attorney General tient aussi à préciser que la question concernant la constitutionalité de l’article en question porte sur le ‘Principle of legality’, et non la liberté d’expression (page 8 du jugement).L’article 46 (h) (ii) de l’ICTA stipule que«Any person who – (h) uses an information and communication service, including telecommunication service, – (ii) for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to any person; shall commit an offence.”

Concernant les ‘Discussions and Conclusions’ à la page 11, les juges soulignent que le point à déterminer avait principalement trait à la “constitutionality of section 46(h)(ii) of the ICTA, as it stood at the time of the commission of the present offences (but which has now been amended)” et que “It is the appellant’s contention that section 46(h)(ii) offends the principle of legality […]”Les délibérations des juges ont porté sur l’article 46 (h) (ii) de la loi ICTA de 2001 qui était en vigueur au moment des faits, en 2012. Ils ont affirmé que les termes, sous cet article, n’étaient pas suffisamment précis et clairs. “

As a result, we find that section 46(h)(ii), as it then was, has failed to define with sufficient clarity and certainty the conduct which falls within and that which falls outside the ordinary meaning of the expression “causing annoyance” for the purpose of determining whether a particular conduct is criminal.”Les juges ont mis l’accent sur ce point à la page 20 du jugement, et ont soutenu que ce jugement ne remet pas en question la constitutionalité de l’article 46 (h) (ii), modifié en 2018 : “For the above reasons, we hold that section 46(h)(ii) of ICTA (as it stood at the time of the commission of the present offences), in so far as it relates to the offence of using an information and communication service for the purpose of causing annoyance, for which the appellant was prosecuted, must be struck down as unconstitutional, being in breach of the principle of legality implied under section 10(4) of the Constitution. We wish to add that we are not hereby making any pronouncement as to the constitutionality of the new redrafted section 46(h)(ii), as amended by Act No.14 of 2018.”

Le jugement souligne aussi la responsabilité de ceux qui s’expriment sur les réseaux sociaux. “We certainly agree that it is imperative that those who make an abuse of their right to freedom of expression be taken to task by subjecting them to appropriate legislation enacted for that purpose.”Bureau de l’Attorney General Vendredi 28 mai 2021

Posted by on May 29 2021. Filed under Actualités, En Direct, Politique. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Leave a Reply

Search Archive

Search by Date
Search by Category
Search with Google

Photo Gallery

Copyright © 2011-2016 Minority Voice. All rights reserved.