![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions >> Dayal v Jugnauth & Ors [2023] UKPC 37 (16 October 2023) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2023/37.html Cite as: [2023] UKPC 37 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[2023] UKPC 37
Privy Council Appeal No 0006 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Surendra Dayal (Appellant)
v
Pravind Kumar Jugnauth and 5 others (Respondents)
From the Supreme Court of Mauritius
Before
Lord Lloyd-Jones
Lord Sales
Lord Hamblen
Lord Stephens
Dame Sue Carr
JUDGMENT GIVEN ON
16 October 2023
Heard on 10 July 2023
Timothy Straker KC
Nandkishore Ramburn SC
Imogen Sadler
(Instructed by Etude AO Jankee (Mauritius))
First to Third Respondents
Guy Vassall-Adams KC
Louis Eric Wilson Ribot SC
Ravindra Chetty SC
Tim James-Matthews
(Instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP)
Fourth and Sixth Respondents
Helen Mountfield KC
Annabelle Ombrasine
(Instructed by RWK Goodman LLP (London))
Fifth Respondent
Rishi Pursem SC
Anwar Moollan SC
Ali Adamjee
Raza Currimjee
(Instructed by Etude A Rajah SA (Mauritius))
Introduction
(i) That promises made by Mr Jugnauth in October 2019 to increase the basic retirement pension (“BRP”), to accelerate forms of public sector pay and terms, and to pay one-off performance bonuses to police officers, firemen and prison officers constituted bribery (grounds 1 and 3);
(ii) That the provision of free food and drink at an event on 1 October 2019 organised by the Ministry of Social Security (“MSS”) constituted treating (ground 2).
Key events
“My colleague, Ivan Collendavelloo, Deputy Prime Minister, all colleagues, ministers PPS, members of the National Assembly, members of the diplomatic corps, the Lord Mayor of the City of Port Louis, the president and all the members of the Senior Citizen Council, all distinguished guests and all elders who are here…
For our elders what we have done, and you know I have already said it in the past, I had wished that we could make the pension come at the same level with the minimum salary ie Rs 9,000. And you know, I must remind you 2014, the old age pension was 3,623 rupees and we had promised as soon as we come in power we will increase it to Rs 5,000. We kept our promise. Others were saying it could not be done, it would not be done, we kept our promise, we brought it to Rs 5,000 and the government is working. We have reached almost 5 years and we did not get any problem. On the contrary, we have improved year after year, we have further and after January you will receive a pension of 6,710 monthly. I must say, I heard the President’s speech, he said, well I agree with many things which he said but there are things which I do not agree, he said “do not touch our pension”. But I can’t do that, unfortunately for him, I can tell you that in our next mandate, next government we will double your pension, we will bring it to Rs 13,500. Now just imagine, may be among you there are surely two elders in your home, two elders, look how many are raising their hands. Two elders in a house who are over 60 years old, that will make Rs 27,000 which you will receive every month. Therefore let me tell you, you know my undertaking, you know when I give my words as we had given our word in 2014. Some people had said it cannot be, we cannot make it. We increased year by year. This is my undertaking. Rs 13,500 during our next mandate. Therefore let me finish, let me finish, I am going to tell you a very important thing…I will look after your grandchildren, your children like my children. I will take care of women, girls…I will take care of all workers in order to be able to give consideration they need in our society…we must especially look after people at the bottom of the ladder. I am already doing it, you can rely on me for the future and for our elders what I have already said I have absolutely no doubt, you know I am a man of my word, we will keep our promise and together we move, hand in hand so that progress can be continued because together everything is possible, thank you.” (emphases added)
The findings of the Supreme Court
(i) The increase in the BRP was one of the “15 mesures phares” of LAM’s electoral manifesto. It was one of the prime subjects of the electoral 2019 campaign, as evidenced by the fact that the LAN also undertook in its electoral manifesto to increase the BRP as from December 2019;
(ii) Mr Jugnauth had based his proposal to increase the BRP on a working paper prepared by the Ministry of Finance. His explanations as to why the increase in the BRP was an important theme of the 2019 electoral campaign were, in essence, that the proposal was a continuation of the policy adopted in 2014 by a new incoming government, of which the first to third Respondents had formed part. Mr Jugnauth had stated his wish to increase the BRP on numerous occasions before 1 October 2019, in recognition of the elders’ immense contribution to the economy and to the maintenance of moral and religious values, for which they deserved due consideration and respect. It was in line with his philosophy continually to increase the standard of living and the general welfare of vulnerable elders. LAN had also stated the need to enquire better conditions for elders. In any case, given that such a philosophy lies at the heart of any caring government, the validity and soundness of Mr Jugnauth’s explanations could hardly be disputed;
(iii) In terms of a candidate’s duty, under the ESC’s Code of Conduct, to abstain from resorting to electoral promises that were untrue and unrealisable, it was an admitted fact that when LAM formed the new government, the proposal to increase the BRP to Rs 9,000 as from December 2019 had been effected;
(iv) Mr Jugnauth’s announcements to increase BRP were made openly in public to a “crowd coming from all over the island, and not just [the constituency]”;
(v) The announcements were a proposal of what LAM intended to do if re-elected and successful and forming a new government. It was the promise of a future government, and not of an individual candidate. It would have remained a mere statement of intention not binding on any future government. Even if LAM came into power, the increase in the BRP would still have to be approved and voted in by a new Parliament;
(vi) If implemented, the increase would apply “across the board to all old-age pensioners in the whole of Mauritius, not just [the constituency]”. Whether an old-age pensioner had voted for the first to third Respondents, or LAM, would not affect their entitlement to the increase;
(vii) There was no quid pro quo or private arrangement between the first to third respondents and the voters of the constituency whereby the latter would have obtained an increase in the BRP only if they had voted in favour of the former;
(viii) There was nothing sinister, “remarkable, spectacular [or] unprecedented”, in the SVICC event. The International Day of Older Persons (on 1st October), declared by the United Nations in 1990, had been celebrated annually in Mauritius at national level since 2007. The MSS was in charge of organising the event, and providing transport, food and drinks. Old-age persons were invited through numerous associations, as well as dignitaries such as ministers, diplomats and the United Nations representative. The Prime Minister (or President) were often the “chief guest”. Mr Jugnauth had attended every year since 2017 as Prime Minister and “chief guest”. It was usual for the “chief guest” to speak last. The organisation of the SVICC event was thus in pursuance of the annual celebration of the International Day of Older Persons. The absence of Mr Jugnauth’s name on the invitation letter did not make his appearance in any way “surprising or untoward”;
(ix) There was also nothing “surprising or untoward” in the fact that Mr Jugnauth addressed the audience at the SVICC event. He spoke on several other topics, beyond the BRP, of interest both to old-age pensioners and the population in general;
(x) Whilst the announcement in relation to the BRP at the SVICC event was covered extensively by the MBC, it was also, unsurprisingly, widely covered by the private radios and press which had a wider circulation and audience;
(xi) Contrary to Mr Dayal’s submission that the first to third Respondents had to resort to bribery, the situation was, as Mr Jugnauth stated, “very good” for them, as demonstrated by the comfortable margin by which they were elected;
(xii) In short, the announcement of an increase in the BRP was “part of normal electoral campaigning”.
(i) The PRB Report was an important theme of the electoral campaigns of both the LAM and the LAN for the 2019 general election. This was unsurprising, given that, as Mr Dayal himself stated, the PRB was a matter of utmost importance to all employees of the public sector;
(ii) The proposals relating to the PRB Report were contained in both parties’ electoral manifestos and were made openly in public;
(iii) They were addressed to the whole of Mauritius and not just the constituency, and would apply to public officers throughout Mauritius and irrespective of how they voted;
(iv) They were promises of a future government, and not of individual candidates. They were proposals of what each alliance would do if elected and successful in forming a new government. They were no more than mere statements of intention, and not binding on any future government;
(v) There was no evidence of any quid pro quo, bargaining or private arrangement between the first to third respondents (or Mr Dayal) and the public officers of the constituency. Nor could there have been, given the element of uncertainty arising out of the fact that the PRB had not yet been published. Some public officers might have refused to accept the new recommendations when signing their option forms;
(vi) The payment of performance bonuses to police officers, firemen and prison officers was a recommendation of the 2016 PRB Report. It was therefore not a new proposal; rather it was “simply a question of whether and when it would be implemented”. Mr Jugnauth explained that the recommendation would normally have taken effect in 2018, but payment was delayed by the need for performance appraisals, upon which payment was conditional, and which were time-consuming and “tedious”;
(vii) The proposal for bonuses was not misleading or unrealisable. LAN’s electoral manifesto contained a similar proposal, and the proposal was approved by Cabinet after the formation of the new government in 2019;
(viii) Moreover, the proposal for bonuses was not a decision or policy measure that had been approved by Cabinet at the time. Mr Jugnauth announced the proposal in the name of LAM, not in his own individual name.
(i) (As it had already identified,) the International Day of Older Persons was celebrated annually in Mauritius at national level with transport, food and drinks being provided. There was nothing “surprising or untoward” in the SVICC event, either in terms of the distribution of food or the attendance of Mr Jugnauth as “chief guest”;
(ii) It was the MSS that was in charge of organising the annual celebration, every year providing transport, food and drinks to the old-age pensioners attending;
(iii) Catering for the event had been the subject of a procurement exercise since 2015. For the SVICC event, the contract for the provision of biryani was awarded to Metos Company Limited following a tender exercise;
(iv) The MSS did not form part of the ministerial portfolio of any of the first to third respondents at the material time. There was no evidence that they participated or were involved in the organisation of the SVICC event and the distribution of biryani, which were under the responsibility of the MSS. Nor, on the evidence, could it be said that the officers of the MSS were acting as agents of the first to third respondents. There was in any event no evidence that the distribution of biryani was effected with their consent and authorisation;
(v) As for Mr Dayal’s emphasis on the fact that biryani, a radically different (and superior) type of food from previous years, had been distributed at the SVICC event, in fact, biryani had been distributed at the same event in 2014. And in 2019 only one portion per person was allowed, and to a crowd from “all corners of Mauritius”. Nothing suspicious or untoward was involved;
(vi) There was also no evidence to show the distribution of biryani had influenced any old-age pensioner to vote in a particular way. The fact that the distribution was disorganised did not establish corrupt treating.
Mr Dayal’s position on appeal in overview
The relevant legislation and case law
“(1)(a)…[A] petition…complaining of an undue election of a member to service in a council on the ground that:
…(ii) the election was avoided by reason of bribery, treating, undue influence, illegal practice, irregularity, or any other reason,
may be presented to a Judge in Chambers by:
(B) any person who claims to have had a right to be returned or elected at the election to which the petition relates; or
(C) a person who alleges he was a candidate at the election to which the petition relates.”
“64 Bribery and treating
(1) Any person who-
(a) directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf gives, lends, or agrees to give or lend, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure, any money or valuable consideration to or for any elector, or to or for any person on behalf of any elector, or to or for any other person in order to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act on account of any elector having voted or refrained from voting at any election;…
(c) directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement or agreement as is mentioned in paragraph (a)…to or for any person, in order to induce such person to procure, or endeavour to procure, the return of any person as an elected member of a council or the vote of any elector at any election;…
shall be guilty of bribery under this Act.
(2) A person who-
(a) corruptly by himself or any other person, either before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays in whole or in part the expenses of giving or providing, any food, drink, entertainment, or provision to or for any person for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person, or any other person, to vote or refrain from voting at such election;…
shall be guilty of treating under this Act.”
“The test may be stated as follows: A candidate does not fall foul of our electoral law against bribery where he is selling so to speak government performance or electoral programme or party manifesto to attract votes. That is normal electoral campaigning. The candidate must convince the voters why they should vote for him or his party. He will however fall foul of the law when he is involved in buying votes i.e. exchange vote for money or any other valuable considerations instead of using cogent argument to influence the voters. There must be an element of bargaining and the corrupt motive will stand out so obviously from the facts….making electoral promises or blowing one’s own trumpet during an election campaign cannot be said to be corrupt practices of bribery…There is obviously a marked distinction between blowing one’s own trumpet and calling upon the voters to continue voting for that party and bribery in the sense of gratifying or endeavouring to procure valuable consideration to the voter or putting [it] bluntly buying the votes or inducing the electors to vote for him or his party which is no doubt reprehensible and illegal…”
(i) Cooper v Slade [1856] 6 HL Cas 746: the court addressed the meaning of “corruptly” in 17 and 18 Vict. c. 102. A promise to pay a voter his travelling expenses on condition that he voted for the party promising to pay was an offence of bribery. “Corruptly” did not equate with “dishonestly”; rather it meant “purposely doing an act which the law forbids as tending to corrupt voters, whether it be to give a pecuniary inducement to vote, or a reward for having voted in any particular manner. Both the giver and the receiver in such a case could be said to act “corruptly” (at p 773);
(ii) Kingston-upon-Hull (1911) 6 O’Malley & Hardcastle 372: the court held that corrupt practices were not limited to cases where moral corruption was the governing motive. A corrupt practice existed when “a man does a thing which must produce an effect upon an election which is contrary to the intention of the Act of Parliament - an improper thing, influencing the electors in a manner contrary to the intention of Parliament” (at p 373). There the distribution of coals to certain individuals in the candidate’s constituency and the provision of boxes of sweets in certain schools was held to amount to corrupt practice;
(iii) Iqbal Singh v Gurdas Singh (1976) 3 SCC 284: this involved an electoral challenge under section 123 of the (Indian) Representation of People Act 1951. Neither the issuing of gun licences or the grant for construction of dharamshalas for Harijans was held to amount to corrupt practice. In relation to the gun licences, the court relied, amongst other things, on the fact that there was no evidence “regarding bargaining for votes by the promise of gun licences” (at paras 11 and 13);
(iv) Brown v Hartlage 456 US 45 (1982) (“Brown”): this involved a challenge to an application of the Kentucky Corrupt Practices Act, § 121.055 of which prohibited a candidate from offering material benefits to voters in consideration of their votes. During a press conference, Mr Brown had pledged to lower commissioners’ salaries if elected as a commissioner. It was held that the application of § 121.055 to limit speech was in violation of the First Amendment. Where a State sought to restrict directly a candidate’s offer of ideas to the voters, the First Amendment required that the restriction be demonstrably supported by a compelling legitimate state interest. Amongst other things, the application of § 121.055 could not be justified as a prohibition on buying votes. Mr Brown’s statements were made openly, were subject to the criticism of his political opponent and to the scrutiny of voters, were very different in character from corrupting private agreements and solicitations historically recognised as protected by the First Amendment. There was no constitutional basis on which Mr Brown’s pledge to reduce his salary could be equated with a candidate’s promise to pay voters privately for their support from his own pocket-book. A candidate’s promise to confer some ultimate benefit on the voter, as taxpayer, citizen or member of the general public, did not lie beyond the pale of First Amendment protection. Further, the State’s fear that voters might make an ill-advised choice did not provide the State with a compelling justification for limiting speech. It was not the government’s function to select which issues were worth discussing in the course of a political campaign;
(v) Subramaniam Balaji v The Government of Tamil Nadu (2013) 9 SCC 659: this involved a challenge under section 123 of the (Indian) Representation of People Act 1951 to schemes for the distribution of free colour television sets (and other electrical goods) as part of public welfare schemes in fulfilment of election promises made by the winning political party in its election manifesto. It was held, amongst other things, that the promises in the election manifesto could not be construed as “corrupt practice”. The court held that it would be wrong to declare that every kind of promise in an election manifesto was a corrupt practice and it was not for the court to legislate what kind of promises could and could not be made in an election manifesto. Secondly, a manifesto is a statement of policy only, and the promise of a future government, not of an individual candidate. There was a clear distinction in the legislation between an individual put up by a political party and the party itself. Given the penal nature of the legislation, the rule of strict interpretation had to apply;
(vi) Erlam v Rahman [2015] EWHC 1215 (QB) (“Erlam”): this case included allegations of bribery and treating under section 113 and 114 of the Representation of People Act 1983. The court identified (at paras 386 and 498) the difference between (unethical and illegal) “bribery” and (unethical but legal) “pork barrel politics”, the latter not lying “in the hands of a single individual or directed to the election of an individual candidate”. In that case, Mr Rahman’s conduct fell on the wrong side of the line, since he was in reality the sole controller of the relevant funds, which he manipulated for his own personal electoral benefit.
“…a person is only guilty of the offence of treating if he takes part in the commission thereof in one of the ways limitatively enunciated in those sections…No person can be guilty of the offence of treating unless he has acted corruptly in the sense given to that expression by the statutes, and he cannot have acted corruptly if he was not party or privy to the commission of the offence.”
The proper interpretation of section 64: bribery and treating
“…where in the former part of the 2nd section of the Corrupt Practices Act reference is made to offers and promises made before the vote is given, the legislature clearly intended the court to draw a prima facie reasonable inference from the act done as to the purpose for which it was done, leaving to the other side to rebut that inference if they could…”
Thus, the legislature did not use the word “corrupt” in those cases where the act itself afforded ground for reasonable inference that the act was done for a corrupt purpose. Only in those cases where the court should not infer the purpose simply and solely from the act had the word “corruptly” been inserted.
(i) Whether the proposal was made in open and public, allowing criticism and debate;
(ii) Whether the proposal was the subject of prior political debate, with transparent underlying reasoning;
(iii) Whether the proposal related to a manifesto pledge;
(iv) Whether the proposal related to an important or sensitive topic of public interest;
(v) Whether the subject-matter of the proposal was also the subject of proposals by other candidates or political parties;
(vi) Whether the proposal was generic/of nationwide impact or affected only the candidate’s particular constituency;
(vii) The distance in time between the proposal and polling day;
(viii) Whether the proposed benefit was contingent on particular individuals voting in a certain way;
(ix) Whether there was a quid pro quo and/or element of bargaining between candidate and voter;
(x) Whether the proposal involved a privately funded benefit;
(xi) Whether implementation of the proposal was contingent on future (potentially uncertain) political events, including parliamentary vote;
(xii) Whether the proposal was reasonable or carried an element of deception and/or extreme exaggeration.
Alleged bribery on the facts
(i) The proposals were made in open and public, allowing criticism and debate;
(ii) The proposals had been the subject of prior political debate, and carried transparent underlying reasoning;
(iii) The BRP and PRB Report proposals related to manifesto pledges;
(iv) The proposals related to important and sensitive topics of public interest;
(v) The subject-matter of the proposals was also the subject of proposals by other candidates or political parties;
(vi) The proposals were generic/of nationwide impact, not limited to members of the constituency;
(vii) There were several weeks between the proposals and polling day, and over a month between the SCIVV event and polling day.
(viii) The proposed benefit was not contingent on particular individuals voting in a certain way;
(ix) There was no quid pro quo and/or element of bargaining between candidate and voter;
(x) There was no question of private funding behind the proposals;
(xi) Implementation of the proposal was contingent on future (potentially uncertain) political events, including parliamentary vote;
(xii) There was no finding that the proposals were unreasonable or that they carried any element of deception and/or extreme exaggeration.
Alleged treating on the facts
Conclusion