In 1988, Dr Aumeer applied to the Supreme Court for an injunction restraining the Assemblée de Dieu from using loudspeakers at any time on the premises occupied by the respondent at Lamberty Road, Vacoas. In granting the injunction, Mr. Justice Ahnee said:

?The right of the citizen to freedom of thought and of religion, including his right to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching practice and observance, is no doubt a fundamental one duly protected by the Constitution. That fundamental right, however, has to be exercised in a civilized society as ours in such a way as not to cause inconvenience to others.?

?People have the undisputed right to pray but in so doing they must assume that God, however called, is not deaf and their prayers should not cause inconvenience to those who have also an undisputed right not to pray or to pray some other God?.

Chapter 2 of the Constitution of Mauritius which provides inter alia for the freedom of conscience clearly states that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are subject to limitations ?designed to ensure that the enjoyment of those rights and freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or the public interest?.

Indeed, charters laying down rights and freedoms usually provide that the rights to be enjoyed by any individual or group of individuals are subject to the rights and freedoms of other individuals and other groups. Society has to strike a balance between these competing rights. The exercise of some rights which may affect the rights of others are not absolute. For instance, a right to do something which results in loud noise is and must be subject to the exercise of the rights of others to enjoy a peaceful sleep.

In the judgment given last week by the Supreme Court in the case of Glover v Municipality of Quatre Bornes, the case was brought not against the Waqf of Hidayat-E-Islam Masjid which runs the mosque situated in a residential area of Quatre Bornes. Unlike the Aumeer case when an injunction was sought against the organisation responsible for the noise, Mr. Gavin Glover chose to obtain an order against the Municipality of Quatre Bornes to enforce its powers under the Noise Protection Act and the regulations made under the Act to regulate the use of amplifiers and loudspeakers by the mosque in its daily calls to prayers at any time during the day or at night. The judgment is consequently based on the powers of the Municipality of Quatre Bornes under the Act.

Muslim Members of Parliament from the Labour Party, the MSM and the MMM have at an open air press conference attended by a huge crowd, criticised the judgment and asked the Government to take immediate steps to amend the Noise Protection Act so as to effectively invalidate the Supreme Court judgment. The MP?s even set an ultimatum to the Executive by demanding that the amendment should be made by April 10.

The call by the MP?s raise several serious concerns.

Should Government give in to the sectarian lobby and amend the law and regulations, these amendments may be challenged on constitutional grounds. If they are found to be unconstitutional, Government would have given in to a lobby under pressure in vain. If the amendments are deemed to be consistent with the Constitution, nothing will preclude a further application on the Aumeer principles. An injunction against the religious organisations concerned and not against the authorities for enforcing the law as Mr. Glover sought to do, could still be obtained unless the Supreme Court decides to depart from precedent and re-interpret the relevant provisions of the Constitution.

MP?s are elected by constituents who come from all ethnic and religious backgrounds. The fact that a common front is constituted by MP?s coming from a particular religious background in their capacities as MP?s whereas their mandate derives from the vote of their constituents across the board, is a serious threat to our secular democracy. An MP as a private citizen is free to practise his religion but when MP?s from all political parties come together in a common front constituted solely on the basis of their common religious affiliation this creates a serious communal polarisation of Mauritian politics and a perversion of the constitutional mandate given to members of Parliament.

The voters of a particular constituency confer a mandate on an MP to represent all the people who live in the constituency. The mandate does not extend to using the status of Member of Parliament to join other Members of Parliament of the same faith to force the Executive to legislate in any manner whatsoever.

In the same vein, MP?s who in their private lives belong to a religious group which does not support abortion would be committing a serious mistake if they were to associate themselves in a common front of MP?s united by a common faith to seek to prevent the Executive from legalising abortion. On a free vote, MP?s may vote according to their conscience. However, constituting a common platform of public officials who have a mandate conferred by people from across the board to defend a particular religious belief would be unacceptable in a secular democracy.

The leaders of all political parties and public opinion leaders must severely condemn any move which may escalate into a dangerous sectarian divide. A country still finding its way after many years of nation-building can very easily drift into the extremely dangerous path of communal lobbies dictating their will and setting ultimatums to the rest of society.

The constitutional balance between rights and freedoms of individuals including the freedom of conscience (freedom of religion as such is not mentioned in the Constitution) on the one hand AND the rights and freedoms of other individuals on the other hand must be maintained at all costs. No individual or group of individuals should be allowed to invoke his or its constitutional rights and deny the constitutional rights of others. In a democracy and one where the courts are the ultimate arbiters of constitutional freedoms, the judges are called upon to exercise this delicate balancing exercise. This should be left to the judges who will examine the facts of each case on its own merits. There is no reason for the political legislature to interfere.

There is a growing sectarian lobby in government which thwarts any attempt to discipline staff, with accusations of communalism. The same lobby exerts considerable pressure to get persons of a particular community appointed in various positions. This sectarian lobby is a threat to our social fabric. It is the duty of all our forces vives to stand up to the sectaires. The present situation is a potentially explosive one where other lobbies would follow suit and the ugly faces of division will raise their heads once again.

These trends must be taken very seriously at a time when one of the most important threats faced by the civilised world is that coming from extremists and fundamentalists.

There is no place for sectarian politics in Mauritius and any MP indulging in sectarian politics will have to face the electorate again and ask for the votes of constituents from across the board. These voters will have to be reminded of the use made of the status of MP by the individuals they voted into office, to associate with other holders of public office on purely sectarian grounds and militate for causes which they can only support in their private capacities.

Many people were frightened by what they saw on their television screens on Saturday evening. They were worried because they found out that there is now officially a parliamentary caucus based on religious affiliation. There is already such a caucus in Cabinet. People are frightened because of a drift to sectarianism which has destroyed other societies. People are frightened because if government gives in to sectarian demands and ultimatums there will be an unprecedented surrenchère sectaire which will leave this country severely bruised and the present economic recovery in tatters. The nation needs to stand up against all sectarian forces in government and in politics in general.

C.CULAR