SINCE I am going to deal with a serious matter, I make sure that I have the competence and the confidence to write about it, unlike a handful of busybodies and ignoramuses who are eager to listen to their voice on radio or television and will comment on every matter. (…)

With regard to the appointment of Prime Minister by the President of the Republic, the Constitution of the Republic of Mauritius provides in section 59 of chapter V1: Ministers

There shall be a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister who shall be appointed by the President.

(…) The President, acting in his own deliberate judgment, shall appoint as Prime Minister the member of the assembly who appears to him best able to command the support of the majority of the members of the Assembly (…)

Our Constitution is based on the British model, which in the absence of a written text, is made up of practice, conventions and Acts of Parliament. Recently after the victory of Brexit, the Prime Minister, David Cameron who had campaigned to stay, resigned... Her Majesty, the Queen, … appointed Theresa May to replace him... The choice was hers and was dictated by convention and constitutional practice. There has been no suggestion that any third party intervened in favour of Theresa. (…)

A number of people have commented on SAJ’s recent declaration about the identity of his replacement should he cease to perform the functions of Prime Minister. SAJ may have done this, I suspect, with an ulterior motive. (…)

I now invite your readers’ attention to the wording of S.59 of the Constitution above. The words “acting in his own deliberate judgment”, “shall appoint as Prime Minister the member of the Assembly who appears to him (…)best able to command the support of the majority of the members of the Assembly” are unequivocal.

In the case of the appointment of the Prime Minister, nowhere is it mentioned; “and shall, acting in accordance with advice of the Prime Minister, appoint …”. (...) Had the Prime Minister’s advice been required, Major would never have succeeded Margaret Thatcher in the UK. The debate which is now raging, whether it was provoked deliberately or not, is misplaced. It should have taken place prior to the last election. (…) But elections are over and the Alliance Lepep, unless they have forgotten it, won a landslide victory.

Her Excellency, the President of the Republic of Mauritius, like her British counterpart, has powers. She is not a mere figurehead. (…) It would be, to say the least highly improper of any public official to attempt to influence Her Excellency’s decision one way or the other.

The Leader of the opposition, who sometimes impresses us by his reasoning, is right when he says that if ever the Prime Minister ceases to exercise his functions, Pravind Jugnauth, if he commands the loyalty of the majority of the members of the Assembly, will become the next Prime Minister. But until then many things may happen which will change the substance of our debate.

But as I hinted earlier the matter is no more (…). It is legal – eminently legal. The constitutional provision is clear, if not, constitutional experts may give their interpretations, but ultimately, the decision, when the time comes, will rest with Her Excellency.