Controversy Surrounding the Nomination of Senior Counsels and Senior Attorneys - Vinod Boolell: 'More Credibility to the Process'

In light of the backlash following the recent nominations of Senior Counsels and Senior Attorneys, Parliament is urged to clarify the selection criteria. The corresponding bill will be debated this Friday in the Assembly.

A new legal framework for the appointment of Senior Counsels and Senior Attorneys will be discussed on Friday, October 10, at the National Assembly. The Senior Counsel & Senior Attorney Bill aims to legally enhance the nomination process by creating a Recommendation Panel responsible for proposing names to the President of the Republic for these honorary titles. The panel will be chaired by the Chief Justice and will include the Senior Puisne Judge, the two longest-serving judges, the Attorney General, as well as the presidents of the Bar Council and the Mauritius Law Society. If they do not hold the title themselves, they will be replaced by a designated Senior Counsel or Senior Attorney. The text also specifies the criteria: having at least 15 years of experience, being listed on the roll of attorneys, contributing to the development of law, possessing specialized skills, a solid reputation, integrity, and exemplary professional practice.

According to Vinod Boolell, a former Supreme Court judge, the reform is welcome. "Under the current system, the Chief Justice has the sole prerogative to appoint Senior Counsels and Senior Attorneys. There is no doubt that she consults other judges as well as prominent members of the bar, but the system remains opaque. Unfortunately, this has always been the case," he explains.

He believes that the new text brings more transparency, especially with at least four judges on the panel. "This gives more credibility to the process and strengthens the independence of the procedure," asserts Vinod Boolell. "Nothing in the text suggests that the law will be retroactive. And since the list published on August 14, 2025, is being contested in the Supreme Court, let's wait to see what happens," he adds. The only downside he notes is the lack of a mechanism allowing an attorney to contest their non-selection. "Unlike in England, there is no procedure to voice one's opinion. But let's allow the panel to prove itself," he says. Regarding the presence of the Attorney General on the panel, the former judge clarifies: "In England, the Attorney General is not part of it, probably to avoid any perception of political influence. That said, with four judges on the panel, the risk of influence is very limited." For Attorney Hunchun Gunesh, the adoption of this law could ease tensions surrounding the contested nominations. "At its core, the challengers seek a legal framework aimed at enhancing transparency regarding the nominations. Now that the criteria are known, I hope this will put an end to the ongoing dispute," he asserts. However, he believes that the nominations from August 14, 2025, should be reviewed. "This would prevent any allegations of political interference or lack of consultation with the Bar Council and the Mauritius Law Society," the attorney argues. On the profile of future nominees, Attorney Hunchun Gunesh is adamant: "It is unacceptable for a member of the legal profession, whose career is marred by troubling matters, to find themselves on the list." Regarding the presence of the Attorney General, he does not share the reservations expressed by others. "We have inherited an English system where the Attorney General plays an important role in the judicial system. He is not an elected politician," he states, while suggesting that "we could have gone further by adding two other independent members, a Senior Counsel and a Senior Attorney designated by the Bar Council and the Mauritius Law Society respectively."