IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of: Mrs Roubina JADOO-JAUNBOCUS, Applicant v/s 1. Mr Paul LAM SHANG LEEN 2. Mr Samioullah LAUTHAN 3. Dr Ravind Kumar DOMUN Respondents In the presence of- (1) The State of Mauritius (2) The Honourable Attorney-General @) Mr Koosiram Conhye Co-Respondents I, Samioullah LAUTHAN, member of the Human Rights Division of the National Human Rights Commission residing at 66 Babonne Avenue, Soreze Pailles and holder of National Identity Card bearing number L130145010332G MAKE SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AS A MUSLIM AND SAY THAT: 1. I am the Respondent No. 2 in the present application and I have been duly authorised to affirm the present affidavit on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 3. 2. [have taken cognizance of the affidavit affirmed on 8 October 2018 by Applicant (hereinafter referred to as “the said affidavit"), 3. Respondents take note of the contents of paragraphs 1 to 5 of the said affidavit, 4, — Respondents admit the contents of paragraphs 6 to 11 of the said affidavit. Respondents record the admission that Applicant was given the opportunity to provide explanations on matters detailed at paragraphs 12(i) to (vi) of the said affidavit. Respondents however deny paragraph 12 (vii) of the said affidavit and aver that at no point in time did the Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) reach such a conclusion and this is not reflected in the Report. 6. Respondents admit the contents of paragraphs 13 to 17 of the said affidavit. 7. Respondents deny the contents of paragraphs 18 to 20 of the said affidavit and aver that- GENERALE Ca10. At (@) a scrutiny of the evidence placed before the Commission, including but not limited to the itemised bill of a sim card obtained in prison revealed that Applicant's mobile had been in communication with a mobile number registered in the name of Mr Peroumal Veeren whilst the latter was serving sentence; (b) Applicant was requested to provide explanations on matters set out at paragraph 12 of the said affidavit and the Commission, not having found convincing the version of Applicant in respect of the phone call she received from Mr Perournal Veeren on 2 June 2014 and the unsolicited visits to prison, has recommended an in depth enquiry in the light of the analysis of evidence as detailed at pages 228 and 229 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Drug Trafficking (hereinafter referred to as the Report); (©) the Commission has left it to the relevant authorities to take whatever action they deem fit if the facts are prove (@ by such recommendation, the Commission did not invite those authorities to specifically take action against Applicant; and (© had the Commission made findings against Applicant, it would not have recommended that an enquiry be made. Respondents record the admission contained in paragraph 21 of the said affidavit to the effect that the Commission made no findings against Applicant but left it to the relevant authorities to take action they deem fit if facts are proved. In reply to paragraph 22 of the said affidavit, Respondents reiterate that the Commission made no findings against Applicant and had it made such findings, it would not have recommended that an enquiry be made as clearly stated in the Report. In reply to paragraph 23 of the said affidavit, Respondents take note from Annexure RJJ6 that Applicant made a request to the Office of the President for a copy of the proceedings of the Commission in relation to her deposition. Respondents are otherwise not aware of the other averments made in the said paragraph. In reply to paragraph 24 of the said affidavit, Respondents aver that- (a) the Commission acted on the strength of statements under oath obtained from ASP Jean Hector Louis Tuyau and to Annex 4 produced by ASP Tuyau in the course of the proceedings to make the observations in the Report; (b) Annex 4 to the Repost, under annexure B, which has not been annexed to the application reads as follows- “17. Me Roubina JADOO, NIC No. J0204734603923, had on the 30* of January 2009, visited seventeen detainees from 10.45 hrs and 13.35 hrs, without being sollicited (sic). On 29.04.2008, she received Rs 50, 000.00 from Mrs Maria CUPIDON (Arrested for importation of heroin) for onward transmission to drug trafficker Christopher KABINDA. ‘She had also been in communication once with Peroumal VEEREN whilst the latter was serving sentence. She was summoned by the Commission on 12.07.2017.’ and(© the name “Kamasho” at page 229 in the Report should in fact have been “Kabinda” as clearly stated in Annexure B of Annex 4 to the Report produced by ASP Tuyau, of which reference is made both at page 259 thereof, and in the list of prisoners which had been communicated to Applicant, receipt of which has been acknowledged by her at paragraph 14 of the said affidavit. 12. Save and except that the name Kamasho should read Kabinda as stated at paragraph 11 (b) above, Respondents deny the contents of paragraph 25 of the said affidavit and reiterate paragraph I1(a) above. 13. Respondents deny the contents of paragraphs 26 to 29 of the said affidavit, reiterate paragraphs 7, 9 and 11 above and aver that nowhere in the Report has a finding been made that Applicant has been an accomplice in money laundering and had such a finding been made, no recommendation would have been made for enquiries to be made by relevant authorities, if facts are proved. “S, Respondents quote verbatim the following extracts from the Report at page 229- \e... This isa very serious matter asitappears that she had been the middleman oftransmitting ‘oney to a drug trafficker, likelihood of being an accomplice in money laundering. "he Commission recommends that an in depth enquiry be carried out in the light of what = been highlighted above. The fact of communicating with a prisoner through unauthorised ieans is an offence under the law. The Commission leaves it to the relevant authorities to take shatever action they deem fit ifthe facts are proved”. ep 4. * Respondents deny the contents of paragraph 30 of the said affidavit, reiterate paragraphs 5 and 7 above and aver that- @) in the Report, facts were disclosed, and recommendations were made by the Commission based on evidence placed before it; (b) Applicant was given the opportunity to provide particulars as admitted by her at paragraph 12 of the said affidavit in respect of several matters including the phone call she received from Mr Peroumal Veeren and the unsolicited visits to prison; (©) throughout the proceedings, the Commission has acted within the parameters of the law; and @ as to certain matters obtained by the Commission under oath and which could not be enquired further in details, the Commission never made any findings but recommended further inquiry into those matters by the relevant authorities. 15. _Inreply to paragraphs 31 and 32 of the said affidavit, Respondents aver that the said observations were made on the basis of official prison records obtained. 16. Respondents deny the contents of paragraph 33 of the said affidavit and reiterate paragraphs 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 above. 17. Respondents are not aware of the contents of paragraphs 34 to 37 and 41 to 50 of the said affidavit, make no admission to same and aver that the averments contained in those paragraphs are unrelated to the present application. 18. Respondents take note of the contents of paragraphs 38 to 40 of the shid affidavit