Contempt confirmed against former top Seychelles judge

12 September 2019 · Carmel Rickard

Controversial former top Seychelles judge, Durai Karunakaran, has done it again. The disgraced jurist, embroiled in yet another legal dispute relating to his behaviour, has lost his appeal against a contempt of court finding. The contempt relates to a highly offensive insult he whispered into the ear of the public prosecutor during proceedings related to another matter involving the former judge. Karunakaran quit the bench earlier this year to avoid being impeached over misbehaviour, but judgments in pending cases involving him had not yet all been finalised.

Read judgments

At first it seemed impossible: how could disgraced former senior Seychelles judge, Durai Karunakaran, have become involved in yet another court dispute? The last time I wrote about him, in August, I predicted that the decision handed down days before was likely to be the last in a very long series of cases under his name. But I was wrong.

The former judge resigned in March this year in order to forestall the presidential dismissal recommended by a tribunal into his behaviour. The facts as given in the decisions delivered this week go back to 27 March 2018 when the constitutional court was hearing some preliminary issues in a case involving the former judge. He was sitting on the left side of the court room and at some stage walked across the room to the right of the court where two state counsel were sitting behind the public prosecutor, Jarayaj Chinnasamy.

Ear

Karunakaran patted Chinnasamy on the back and said some words into the ear of the public prosecutor.

What happened next is best recorded in the dissenting decision delivered this week.

Counsel for Karunakaran, Philippe Boulle, was in full flight arguing a point on behalf of his client, when suddenly, immediately after Karunakaran whispered into the prosecutor's ear, Chinnasamy stood up.

Abuses

Completely against the norm, the public prosecutor then broke into Boulle’s argument. Obviously agitated, he said that Karunakaran had come over and abused him in a nasty way. ‘Absolutely nasty abuses when my blood boils and then, as with due respect to this court, I stand with my rules. Now I have to leave this court. He provoked me to the extent where I cannot stand as a human being here.’

Pressed to repeat what Karunakaran had allegedly said to him, Chinnasamy said the words had been: ‘I (have) lost all respect for you. I never knew you would go to this extent. You are an ass-licker, I am sorry to say.’ The public prosecutor said the words belittled his dignity and cast negative aspersions on him and his career. He added that he was not able to continue his duty as counsel at that point.

Asked for his version of what had just happened, Karunakaran agreed that he had just spoken with Chinnasamy, but denied that he had said the impugned words. According to him, he ‘simply asked Chinnasamy “to make submissions sensibly”.’

Apologise

The court, accepting that Chinnasamy’s version of events was correct, ‘invited’ Karunakaran to apologise, both to the public prosecutor and to the court. This he refused to do, saying he had not said the words complained of. The court also said that Karunakaran had no right ‘to go to the other side of the court and tell opposing counsel how he should do his work’. The issue of whether his actions and words had been in contempt of court then came up, and this issue, along with the petition then being dealt with by the court, were both postponed to the following court term.

When the matters were called six months later, the court issued an order holding that the incident had amounted to a misdemeanour and to contempt of court and that the court had invited Karunakaran to apologise to Chinnasamy. Had the apology been forthcoming the court would not have pursued the matter further. Since he had not apologised, however, a summons was issued for Karunakaran to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be continued against him. The bench, unanimously satisfied that there had been a contempt, found him guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of 5000 Rupees or serve seven days in prison.

Fine

The next day, Karunakaran paid the fine. Soon afterwards, he brought an appeal against the contempt finding and sentence. And it was this appeal – heard by a court differently constituted from that which had originally dealt with the matter – that has now been finalised via the decisions issued this week.

The three judges split two to one. President of the court of appeal, Judge Francis MacGregor, with his colleague Judge Cedric Gustave Dodin, found that the contempt finding and sentence were justified. The third member of the bench, Judge Fiona Robinson, would have upheld the appeal.

The majority said any court had jurisdiction ‘to deal with contempt in the face of the court’, otherwise it would be deprived of control 'over whatever act a person may want to do whilst the court was in session’. They said it was contempt to disturb or obstruct a court with insulting behaviour in its presence and at a time when it is sitting. Insults directed to counsel could constitute contempt.

Insolent

‘Calling someone an “ass-licker” is an obvious show of disrespect and scorn stated in an insolent manner intended to offend the integrity of a person’. The comment implied that the person so vilified was willing to stoop below ‘accepted standards’ to please superiors.

In her dissent, Judge Robinson said that the words said into the ear of Chinnasamy had not been heard by the bench, nor by the public. In that sense, Karunakaran did not insult Chinnasamy in open court, nor had his actions ‘disrupted’ the court.

In her view, the finding of guilt was based on a ‘fatal error’ by the court and she would have quashed the conviction.

The final upshot was thus that Karunakaran’s conviction and sentence stand.

* Are there any further cases involving him in which judgment is still awaited? – Time will tell; I wouldn’t risk hazarding a guess this time.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.