LALIT Uploads Plaint with Summons for Case of Lindsey Collen v. State of Mauritius
02.10.2022
During the new LALIT campaign against the new repressive law that puts all spouses not born in Mauritius in a precarious position, we have come to realize that there are next to no families in Mauritius that do not have a close relative married to someone from abroad. Every such family needs the right to come and live here, and to get citizenship so that they are secure as a family unit. The new law on rights to residence and rights to citizenship of spouses born abroad have suddenly, since 27 July 2022, been eroded. So, Lindsey Collen, LALIT member is challenging the new law. She is represented by Antoine Domingue SC and Jean-Claude Bibi, and her attorney is Ayesha Jeewa. To make matters worse, in many countries this kind of repressive law is being enacted, further fragilizing such families. Successive Mauritian Governments have consistently sent young Mauritian students and workers abroad, and is now punishing those who have married someone of their choice.
LALIT is supporting Lindsey Collen’s constitutional case against the State.
Anyone who wants to read the contents of the Case can now go to the “DOCUMENTS” section of www.lalitmauritius.org and access it. You will notice that there are two parts: the technical aspects of her own challenge to the law – under specific sections of the Constitution and with her specific life history – and also her role as a “citizen” of Mauritius, over the 48 years she has lived here, as Ram Seegobin’s wife and in her own right as a resident and then citizen, participating in many aspects of life as a citizen of the Republic.
LALIT is calling on everyone to support this case. Please find ways to express support! Study the Plaint and the laws referred to, and contact any LALIT member for details, and we will all do our best to help. We have started having meetings in neighbourhoods, and they have been well received.
Then see how you can, for a start, popularize an understanding of the demand for either the Government to repeal the sections that are so repressive, or the Supreme Court to declare them to be inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore “void”.
This way, the Constitutional Case is part of a larger movement.
