Rajen Valayden perd son procès contre le Premier ministre…Les élections municipales ne sont pas inscrites dans la Constitution

Il se croit le sauveur de la démocratie, mais la Cour Suprême vient d’infliger une gifle magistrale à Rajen Valayden dans l’affaire où il réclamait la tenue des élections municipales. La Cheffe Juge et le Juge David Chan Kam Cheong ont motivé leurs décisions et rejeté sa plainte avec dépens. “The plaintiff has been unable to establish any breach of the principle of separation of powers or any breach of a constitutional provision that could justifiably challenge the constitutional validity of the impugned legislation.” En voici des extraits importants :-

The situation is altogether different as regards local government. It is abundantly clear that the framers of our Constitution left it to Parliament, in the exercise of its ordinary law-making powers, to legislate on all matters pertaining to local government. This is highlighted by the following factors:

1. The legal framework which governs local government in Mauritius does not arise from the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on local government elections and, more significantly, in respect of the life span of local councils.
2. Despite the fact that the legal framework establishing the local government system was already in place at the time when the sovereign Constitution came into existence, the framers of our Constitution deliberately chose not to provide any constitutional underpinning to the holding of regular or periodical local government elections.
3. Since the advent of the sovereign Constitution in 1968, which included for the first time Section 1 in its present form, detailed provisions have been enacted by Parliament in the exercise of its ordinary law-making powers for the creation and composition of Municipal Councils, the conduct of Municipal elections, the life span of Municipal Councils and the terms of office of its members.
4. There is no justifiable basis for importing, via Section 1 of the Constitution, that the periodical holding of Municipal elections should be elevated to constitutional status as is the case for the holding of periodical and regular parliamentary elections specially entrenched in the Constitution by due constitutional process.
5. There is no valid basis for the Court to introduce, by implication or interpretation, that the holding of Municipal elections at fixed periods forms an integral part of the concept of a democratic State as contemplated by Section 1 of the Constitution.
6. It has not been established that there is any constitutional impediment which may restrict or limit the competence of Parliament to legislate, pursuant to Section 45 of the Constitution, in order to extend the period of the life of Municipal councils, in conformity with the Local Government (Amendment) Act 2023.
7. The plaintiff has been unable to establish any breach of the principle of separation of powers or any breach of a constitutional provision that could justifiably challenge the constitutional validity of the impugned legislation.

We accordingly hold that, in the light of what we have stated:

(1) Parliament was empowered to validly enact Section 12A(1A) of the Act and provide for an extension of the life of the Municipal

Councils pursuant to the amending legislation.

(2) Section 12(1A) of the Local Government Act is not inconsistent with and does not contravene Sections 1 and 45 or any other provision

of the Constitution for any of the reasons invoked by the plaintiff.

We decline to grant the plaint for constitutional redress and accordingly set it aside. With costs.

Posted by Minority Voice on Jun 19 2024. Filed under Actualités, Economie, En Direct, Featured, Politique. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry