Lam Shang Leen Report: Six Points Against Me Rampoortab to Be Removed

In a ruling made on Thursday, April 30, 2026, the Supreme Court partially sided with Me Vedakur Sharma (Vikash) Rampoortab, after his name was mentioned in the report of the Drug Trafficking Inquiry Commission. The court ordered the removal of six specific points deemed contrary to the principles of natural justice.

In their ruling, judges Rita Teelock and Karuna Gunesh-Balaghee acknowledged that the Commission was operating within its mandate and had broad powers to investigate potential links between lawyers and inmates involved in drug cases. However, they concluded that certain findings against the lawyer did not adhere to natural justice principles, particularly due to the lack of an opportunity for him to respond before publication.

As a result, the court ordered the removal of six points from the report. Among these was a claim stating that the lawyer had communicated "28 times" with an inmate, a figure that had not been presented to him beforehand. The description of "numerous unsolicited visits" was also removed, as the lawyer had not been confronted with this allegation.

Furthermore, the judges ordered the complete removal of the section regarding Me Rampoortab's visits to inmate Francis Townsend, on a matter that had not been raised during his hearing.

Three additional points were also dismissed: the assertion that a client had paid him with money from drug trafficking, which was not disclosed to him; a remark concerning a swift repayment after the BAI case, which was deemed outside the Commission's jurisdiction; and the use of the term "black sheep," which was considered inappropriate in relation to him.

On the other hand, the court upheld certain observations, particularly those concerning phone communications with inmates, noting that the lawyer had the opportunity to explain these aspects during the Commission's proceedings. The judges reiterated a fundamental principle: anyone accused in an inquiry report must be informed of the charges against them and have the opportunity to respond before these details are made public.