Constitutional Case on Fragilization of Citizenship Law due in Court Thursday 9 February
08.02.2023
Tomorrow 9 February, the Supreme Court is due to receive the “Plea” from the Prime Minister and State of Mauritius (defendants’ number 1 and 2) in Lindsey Collen’s challenge against the new law concerning citizenship. The case is due any time from 9:30 a.m. in the Supreme Court Room number 23 in the new Supreme Court building in Edith Cavell Street in Port Louis.
This case is vital to the rights of all Mauritians to be able to marry freely, and it directly concerns the rights of all Mauritians who have been granted citizenship through marriage. There are very few extended families in Mauritius who do not have at least one relative married to someone not born in Mauritius. Anybody might want, or need, at some point, to settle here. All Mauritians have a right, in any case, to marry the person of their choice and elect domicile together. The new law risks fragilizing these rights. LALIT member Lindsey Collen, married to LALIT member Ram Seegobin, who was born in Mauritius, and Lindsey Collen, being a citizen who has expressed her citizenship actively over her lifetime in Mauritius, decided to make the Constitutional challenge on behalf of everyone already threatened by or potentially threatened by the new law. The timing is interesting: almost all mainstream and other parties have put a great deal of emphasis, over the past 10 years or so, on “citizens”, “citizenship”, “Mauritians”, “Mauritianism”, “the nation”, and so on. This is the first case that tests how fragile citizenship is relative to the power of the executive, in particular, to the person in the post of Prime Minister, present or future.
Lindsey Collen’s case is at the crucial stage of proceeding towards “in limine litis”, when at the beginning of a case like this, or at the beginning of many kinds of case, the plaintiff (in this case Lindsey Collen) has to show that she has what is called a “locus standi” meaning something like the “standing” of “footing” from which to put in such a case. Is she affected by the new law? And secondly this stage will decide whether the Constitution can be tested this way. One of the important aspects of democracies is that court cases, once won, can bring gains for the whole of society. In legal terms, these types of actions are called “class actions”. They are a progressive aspect of not only the rule of law but also of “the enlightenment”, itself: that elementary logic demands that a law’s constitutionality, once decided upon by the judiciary, will lead to a change for everyone, not just the person directly concerned.
The case is being followed by hundreds of people already, even at this preliminary stage. Every time the case comes up, even just for “mention”, there are between 15 and 35 people present in the Court room. Do join in the solidarity aspect of the case.
Note that for tomorrow Lindsey Collen’s name was not on the Cause List, which is the official list of cases due to come up. Journalists for example rely upon it – in addition to the people concerned. This is the second time there has been such an omission in the short life of her case. But the case is definitely scheduled, despite this. Note also that the case is in Lindsey Collen’s full name, Lindsey Claire Collen Seegobin, but it is curiously abbreviated to “LCC Seegobin”, and this also makes quick reference to the Cause List difficult for anyone looking for the name “Lindsey Collen” on the list.
In conclusion, it is important to note that the lawyers in Lindsey Collen’s case are all working on the case pro bono, which means they believe in the case, and charge no fees whatsoever. There is an inordinate amount of legal work involved. The legal team are barrister Antoine Domingue SC, barrister Jean-Claude Bibi, and Attorney-at-Law Ayesha Jeewa.
