● The purport of this paper is to underline why we, Campement Owners of Souillac, Riambel, Pomponnette and other sites along the southern coast of Mauritius, alongside with almost the totality of campement owners around the island, consider that the premiums and options on campements in the June 2006 Budget are (i) illegal and unconstitutional (ii) irrational (iii) improper.

(i) They are illegal and unconstitutional because in our view the decision maker, that is the Minister of Finance as well as the National Assembly in passing the Finance Bill, must not have understood correctly the law that regulates decision making and have mistakenly given effect to the bill in relation to imposing those premiums and options. The Finance Minister and his advisers have referred to antiquated legislation dating back to some 200 years about ?Pas Géométriques? and to a paltry compensation of Rs 20,000 on retrieving the sites. Unfair options are being imposed without prior consultation with the campement owners and outrageous premiums and rents are being called for.

All that was pointed out at length when the members of the Association of Campement Owners met in assembly at the City Club, Anglo Mauritius House, on Friday the 28th of July 2006.

(ii) They are irrational because the decision is so outrageous that it is in defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who would apply his mind to the question could have arrived at it.

(iii) They are improper because the decision makers have failed to observe basic rules of natural justice and have flaunted procedural fairness towards the person or persons, i.e. campement owners, who will be affected by such a decision.

We are further informed that English and Mauritian courts have commonly accepted the following as grounds for a review: illegality, procedural unfairness (including legitimate expectation, breach of natural justice) and impropriety (including unreasonable exercise of power).

The above caveat was stated by an English High Court Judge, Lord Diplock, in a court case of a more or less similar nature to ours *. Our contention should therefore be entertained in court because the premiums and options, illegal, improper, irrational and outrageous as they are, will deprive most of us of the benefits and advantages we have in the past been permitted to enjoy by the decision-maker himself (i.e. Government) and which we can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to enjoy without undue harassment.

● It can also be argued that the premiums and options are: inhuman in that very many campement owners have invested heavily in their bungalows, improved the environment, lived by the sea almost all their lives and are now threatened with expulsion, receiving a paltry Rs 20,000 as compensation, because they will not be able to pay a premium ranging from Rs 3M to Rs 5M and a yearly rental of some Rs 150,000 as is the case for Zone D of Riambel, Souillac and the south coast.

A case in point among a hundred others illustrates that inhumanity: Mrs M has been coming to Souillac for her holidays since she was born. Her parents already occupied the site in the 1920?s. Mrs M acquired the lease in her own name in 1966 and has been residing there ever since. She has a final option of 20 more years which she will have to choose as she cannot afford to pay a premium of Rs 3M and a rental obligation of Rs 150,000 yearly. In 2026, on the conclusion of the lease, she would be 94 years old and would be faced with expulsion after she, and her parents before her, have lived on the site for almost a hundred years.

Mrs M is not the only campement owner in such a situation. Among such residents are widows who have been living by the sea for very many years and, since the death of their husbands, receive a pension which only ensures a meagre subsistence.

● The Lance Amstrong Syndrome. Armstrong was abandoned by his father when he was still a baby. He managed to survive, trained hard and became a world cyclist champion. When his father heard the success of his son he contacted him and begged a share of Armstrong?s money.

The Mauritian Government is behaving similarly and just as shamefully. It did nothing for years and years, to improve conditions in the areas where the campements are situated. It showed no interest and therefore claimed minimal rents. The Campement Owners borrowed money from the banks, improved the environment, gave it value and have, for most of them, been living on the premises that they have painfully created, beautified, maintained, cared for.

And now, just like Armstrong?s irresponsible father, the Mauritian Government has the effrontery to claim an illegitimate due on land it has ignored for years.

● Perception. It is recognised that perception is often stronger than reality. A Racinst Connatation. The premiums and options are, by a large body of opinion, perceived as racist notwithstanding the fact that in parallel Government is imposing a National Residential Property Tax.

Some claim that the new impositions in the June Budget have been devised to counterbalance the Residential Property Tax in an attempt to argue with residents in the countryside and in the villages that the ?rich? living by the sea are also being made to pay, and very heavily. Others underline, perhaps rightly, that Government has chosen to spite the Campement Owners because they almost all belong to a precise community, have no real political strength and their votes count for little at elections.

Former MPs and even former Minsters have, in the Mauritian papers, underlined the racist aspect of the measures. It is unlikely that Cabinet Ministers and MPs could have had sinister motives in concocting such an undeserved imposition on Campement Owners. They may not have realised the impropriety of the measure and may genuinely have been harbouring the view that most Campement Owners can afford to dish out large amounts of money. Except for a few multi millionaires such is certainly not the case. Unfortunately, there remains a persistent perception that the options and premiums are racially inspired.

● Applicability. The same former MPs and Minsters, and very many civil servants with a long experience of administrative procedures, have pointed out the difficulty and the unfairness of applying such taxes indiscriminately. We again refer to the numerous articles that have appeared in the local press about applicability.

In another vein, it is to be wondered at that a budget, imaginatively conceived, courageously advocated, should have crashed so lamentably on basic humanistic issues. Issues of bread and butter withdrawn from needy school children ? fortunately reintroduced under popular pressure. Government attempts now to desecrate emotionally charged property ownership.

To sum up, we consider that: La décision est juridiquement discutable, Moralement condamnable, Politiquement inutilement risquée, Fiscalement incertaine et plus grave, Socialement explosive

In conclusion, therefore we claim that such an illegal, unconstitutional, irrational, improper and outrageous imposition should be abandoned forthwith.

• GCHQ of 1985. A.C374,410 ? Council of Civil Services Unions V Ministers for the Civil Service. 1985 known as the GCHQ case.

Armand MAUDAVE (For and on behalf of campement owners of: Souillac, Riambel, Pomponnette, Baie-du-Cap

14th of September 2006