Publicité
Robin RAMBURN
<B>President of the Bar Council</B>
<B>Why has the Bar Council taken the initiative of organising a conference to discuss human rights?</B>
In the context of what has been happening worldwide and in Mauritius, we felt it was our duty to reflect on the matter. Since last year, the issue has taken more and more importance. The previous council had decided to organise a seminar with our members but we also wanted to enlist worldwide authorities. So we had the chance to have Lord Lester of Herne Hill, QC, a world leading expert in the field, and Justice Kate O’Regan from South Africa. And we had our own experts like former Chief Justice Rajsoomer Lallah. So, we have been able to coordinate and put up the conference.
What was its main objective?</B>
Basically, we wanted to give our thoughts to the human rights issue : its meaning, implications, duties, responsibilities. Every freedom carries responsibility with it. A balance should be reached especially in the context of what we’ve been hearing lately that is “victim’s rights and accused rights”. We have to make sure we are not denying any of these rights while public interest is also at the centre of our preoccupations.
<B>As organiser of the seminar, are you satisfied with its results?</B>
I will leave this appreciation to those who attended the seminar; they should draw their own conclusions of the debates. However, I am satisfied that everything worked according to plans. And what was really appreciated was the good participation at the question/answer time.
<B>The conference allowed to point at a number of weaknesses in our Constitution. Could you tell us more about this?</B>
It appeared that both Lord Lester and Rajsoomer Lallah noticed some weaknesses indeed. Although the Constitution appeared to be a great achievement in 1968, the situation has evolved worldwide and human rights are now accepted as a norm. This carries with it a high standard that our Constitution may no longer be up to after 40 years. It is worthwhile to look at it and try to update it. Some sections may be too restrictive in the approach. As Lord Lester pointed out, there is no positive affirmation for the right to life. This is just one example.
So, you’ve pointed at problems. Have you been able to identify solutions as well?</B>
In such issues, you can’t get solutions overnight. Every party has to reflect after such discussions to obtain something comprehensive for the public at large. When such issues as human rights are concerned, there may be a need to change the law. But if you change one section, this may have a consequence on another. So I believe we have to make sure not to put more mess than order. We all need time to reflect upon all the proposals.
<B>How to avoid debate when only words remains which are not translated into acts?</B>
Unfortunately at our level at the Bar Council we can only make suggestions. It is the government’s duty to implement such decisions if they find them useful and constructive for the country. But we found, in the speeches and attitudes of both the PM and the attorney general, that they were willing to take care of grievances. The announcement by the PM that the government would set up an independent commission to enquire over the police is a proof of this as well as Rama Valayden’s declaration that the PM had asked him to review the immunity issue for Icac officers after I criticised it. They look willing to listen and I think it is positive.
Publicité
Publicité
Les plus récents
