Statement concerning LDS allegations on suspension of judge
Wed, 12 October 2016
The Office of the President has categorically rejected allegations made by Linyon Demokratik Seselwa (LDS) in their recent press release as slanderous and a gross misinterpretation of the facts in relation to the suspension of Judge Durai Karunakaran.
The statement by LDS that the suspension of the judge is “politically motivated and a measure of retaliation because of recent rulings by Judge Karunakaran in controversial cases related to the electoral process which were not in the political interests of President Michel and the Parti Lepep,” is a distortion of the truth and designed to mislead the public, in addition to making political capital of a matter which is sub judice.
Furthermore, no credence can be given to LDS’ “calls to President Michel and all the leadership of Parti Lepep to respect the independence of the Judiciary and refrain from using the power of the Executive and state institutions to further political interests”.
The Office of the President is of the firm and unequivocal view that it is the LDS which is interfering in the powers and the independence of the Judiciary as they were the ones who raised the matter of the suspension of Judge Karunakaran not only in their press release but also in the National Assembly.
The Office of the President considers that such an act contravenes the Standing Orders of the National Assembly and should not have been entertained by the Speaker.
Allegations made by LDS are misleading. The President has acted on recommendations made by the Constitutional Appointments Authority. Substantive complaints have been lodged against Judge Karunakaran and predate the judgments LDS have referred to. As the matter is sub judice and as a mark of respect for Judge Karunakaran the Office of the President has refrained from publishing the substance of the complaints against him.
It is reiterated that none of the complaints against Judge Karunakaran are of a political nature, but rather concerns the judge’s propriety, integrity, his impeding of the functioning and reputation of the judiciary and his competence and diligence in the execution of his duties.