Publicité
Robin Ramburn
<I><B>President of the Bar Council</B></I>
How do you feel about the reform of the judicial system that has just been approved by the cabinet?</B>
I think any change for the cause of justice is good in itself. It will be beneficial for all those using the system – lawyers but also witnesses and those asking for justice. Anything that will improve their lot or their position in the system, I think is definitely welcome.
Are there any specific problems lawyers are confronted with because of the present system?</B>
We should realise that no system is perfect; all systems in the world contain defects and it would not be fair not to acknowledge this fact. Now we have to look at our system and see that it is neither the best one nor the worst of all. It has its inherent weaknesses and we have to look at it objectively and in a detached way. I believe the main problem we face today is the fact that it takes too long for a case to be settled – and when you speak of time, you are also speaking of money spent. It is positive that the problem has been identified but I think it would be unfair always to blame the lawyers. A case depends on other people as well and if one of them is sick – witnesses or any one else – the whole case is delayed. In that connection, the “de die in diem” process – which means that the trial should be tackled everyday until the ruling – is one way of solving this problem. It is a step forward. But then, we have another problem: the constitution says that an accused person should be able to be defended by a lawyer of his choice. This is basically an administrative problem and I think everyone would agree that this right is too wide-ranging.
But how to make sure lawyers will be available every day?</B>
We have to be at the disposal of the court – and not vice versa. It will be the lawyers’ responsibility to better manage their diaries. This system will probably lead to more and more of a chamber system or as the government seems to advocate, it will allow barristers to work in association with others. So, when one lawyer can’t go to the Court, one of his colleagues can replace him/her. This will be beneficial for the younger generation as well. Whether you like it or not, Mauritians choose lawyers who already have a name or a reputation; young ones do not have much of a chance. I think this new system could change this situation.
What are the implications of having two different courts to replace the Supreme Court?</B>
So far we have been in a very incongruous situation. The same court deals with the trial and the appeal against its own judgment. In fact, this does not happen because the judges ruling on the case itself will not deal with the appeal – but the impression given is not good ! Technically, there is a flaw there and it is better to have the court split.
Could you comment on the recommendation of Lord Mackay concerning the separation of the office of the DPP from that of the Attorney General?</B>
It was high time that it happened! A lot of foreign visitors who came to Mauritius found this situation fairly strange... And I think we could go even further in that direction with the recruitment system.
Publicité
Publicité
Les plus récents
