Judge Durai Karunakaran’s case |27 May 2017

More files produced before the tribunal

For the third consecutive day, the defence team of suspended judge Durai Karunakaran was absent for the hearing at the National House, but the tribunal went on with its work as Chief Justice Mathilda Twomey continued her testimony.

Appearing before the tribunal for a third time, Supreme Court registrar Juliana Esticot produced 18 more files, bringing the number to 58.

Attorney Philippe Boullé has on behalf of his client, judge Karunakaran, filed a complaint before the Constitutional Court, challenging the appointment of the tribunal.

It was in October 2016, that the decision to suspend judge Karunakaran was taken and according to Chief Justice Twomey, it was as a result of a decision made by the Constitutional Appointment Authority (CAA) to refer him to a tribunal of inquiry to investigate into his “professional conduct”.

It is alleged that judge Karunakaran’s professional conduct has fallen short of the requirements under the Constitution of Seychelles and the principles contained in the Seychelles Code of Judicial in particular:

● His actions both inside and outside the courtroom lacked the integrity and propriety expected of a Supreme Court judge;

● His attitude towards colleagues impeded the functioning and reputation of the judiciary; and

● His competence and diligence in performance of court duties fell short of judicial standards.

Some of the allegations contained in the complaints are:

● Publicly disclosing confidential information relating to the internal functioning of the judiciary;

● Openly disrespecting members of the judiciary and the Bar in your court room and judgments;

● Refusing to leave the Chief Justice’s chambers and continuing to sign judgments as Acting Chief Justice after the appointment of the Chief Justice;

● Attempting to turn the registrar, other judges and members of the Bar against the Chief Justice in order to gain support for yourself;

● Intimidating litigants or counsel who bring complaints about your management of the cases;

● Making amendments to the content of transcripts of court proceedings; and

● Altering the content of a court order after delivering the order in open court and replacing the proper and original court order on file, by the altered court order.

It is also understood that judge Karunakaran repeatedly advocated judicial intervention in order to achieve a subjective notion of justice above a technical application of the law, thus threatening the legitimacy of his decisions, and at the same time his willingness to act as mediator and judge in the same matters infringed on his impartiality in deciding cases and violated the mediation rules.

Judge Karunakaran is also being accused of refusing to work with the chief justice and withdrawing from any engagement as part of the judiciary team and these include:

● Refusing to attend the swearing-in ceremonies of judicial officers including the swearing in of Chief Justice Twomey, Master Ellen Carolus, Magistrate George Robert, Magistrate Jessica Kerr, Judge Melchior Vidot and Judge Seegobin Nunkoo;

● Openly informing Chief Justice Twomey that he does not believe that she is qualified to be the chief justice and subverting her policies and directives;

● Threatening and aggressive actions towards colleagues, including issuing a court order against the chief justice.