Challenge to the Appointments of Senior Counsel and Senior Attorneys: Dissent Emerges within the Mauritius Law Society

The challenge to the appointments of Senior Counsel and Senior Attorneys is causing ripples in the legal community. Three practitioners are seeking to annul the presidential decision made on August 14, which they claim was opaque and unlawful. The State, in turn, is firmly opposing this request.

The State has expressed its refusal to support the judicial review request filed by Messrs. Jacques Tsang Mang Kin, Ammanah Ragavoodoo (advocate), and Avinash Renga Sunassee against the appointments of Senior Counsel and Senior Attorneys announced on August 14, 2025. The case was brought before Judge David Chan Kan Cheong on Tuesday, October 7, 2025.

During the hearing, the Court ordered that a new summons be served to Messrs. Madan Dulloo and Rama Valayden, who were absent from court. Me Rajkumar Baungally, Assistant Solicitor General, clarified that the request is contested on behalf of the State. As for Me Désiré Basset, Senior Counsel, he requested time before taking a position in this matter. He is the legal representative of Chief Judge Rehana Mungly-Gulbul, cited as one of the defendants.

The Mauritius Law Society (MLS), represented by Me Selva Murday, has chosen to abide by the Supreme Court's decision in this matter. However, Me Ayesha Jeewa expressed her personal disagreement with the MLS's position and announced a separate action and internal steps within the organization to voice her grievances. She mentioned that she is not alone in dissenting from the position of the Bar Association. Furthermore, Me Rishi Pursem, Senior Counsel, representing Senior Puisne Judge Nirmala Devat, indicated his intention to contest the presence of Me Jaykar Gujadhur, Senior Attorney, who is representing the three challengers. He is also the president of the Mauritius Law Society (MLS).

The three challengers argue that the presidential decision of August 2025, which designated 19 lawyers as Senior Counsel and 12 advocates as Senior Attorneys, was made without valid recommendation from the Chief Judge and lacked transparent criteria, in violation of the Law Practitioners Act. They are seeking the annulment of the decision and a stay pending the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter. Most of the lawyers and advocates appointed on August 14, 2025, were present in Court during Tuesday's hearing.