Ramgoolam: "Pena post DPM. Don't have to »

Since the resignation of Paul Bérenger on March 20, the position of Deputy Prime Minister has been vacant, relaunching an institutional debate on the interpretation of the Constitution and on the real obligations which arise from the structure of the executive. On Wednesday afternoon, Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam said, during the Tamil New Year celebrations at the Mahatma Gandhi Institute: “Pena post of DPM la. Pa oblize ena. » This statement raises the question of a possible contradiction with constitutional provisions.

Article 59(1) of Chapter VI of the Mauritian Constitution states that: “There shall be a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister who shall be appointed by the President. » This formulation is at the heart of legal interpretation: some see it as a permanent structural obligation.

The constitutionalist Parvèz Dookhy adopts a strict and imperative reading of the text. “The answer is yes, we need a Deputy Prime Minister at all times,” he believes. According to him, the Constitution leaves no ambiguity on the simultaneous existence of key executive positions. “The Constitution clearly says: “there shall be a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister”. That means it’s imperative,” he insists.

For Parvèz Dookhy, the prolonged absence of appointment constitutes an institutional anomaly. “We should have named him straight away. The Constitution has not provided for a deadline because it is part of the very existence of the government,” he explains. He considers that a reasonable delay could have been tolerated solely for administrative reasons. “In one or two days after the resignation, a new DPM should have been appointed, no more,” he adds.

The lawyer goes further by highlighting the structural implications of this vacancy. “There are three mandatory positions: the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. Without which a government cannot exist,” he explains. According to him, this constitutional architecture imposes immediate continuity of executive functions. He also criticizes the interim management of the situation. “Normally, in the spirit of the Constitution, when a minister resigns, his portfolio is immediately reallocated to ensure the interim. » However, in this case, this process was not respected. “The DPM ministry was also not transferred pending a formal appointment. This is a flagrant violation of the Constitution. »

Parvèz Dookhy finally mentions the possibility of legal recourse. “The leader of the opposition could refer the matter to the Supreme Court to ask it to order the appointment of a DPM,” he says, considering that the current situation could be contested constitutionally.

Another constitutionalist agrees. “The Constitution leaves little doubt, but perhaps they have another interpretation at the level of the Sta