IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS. In Re: Axcel CHENNEY, of 9 Cinnamon, Begonia Avenue, Morcellement Palmyre, Flic en Flac. Applicant v. Independent Broadcasting Authority, of Level 2, The Celi Court, 6, Sir Celicourt Antelme Street, Port Louis, Mauritius. Respondent In the presence of:- Youshreen CHOOMKA, of Level 2, The Celi Court, 6, Sir Celicourt Antelme Street, Port Louis, Mauritius. Co-Respondent And in the matter of; Ex parte: ‘Axcel CHENNEY, a journalist, of 9 Cinnamon, Begonia Avenue,Morcellement Palmyre, Flic en Flac. Applicant |, Axcel CHENNEY, a journalist, residing at 9 Cinnamon, Begonia Avenue, Morcellement Palmyre, Flic en Flac and holder of National Identity Card No, C1311843000286 MAKE OATH AND SAY:- 1. Lam the Applicant in the above matter. 2. | hold a Master's degree in media management with specialisation in marketing and communication from the French University of Lille |- Sciences et Technologies and have been professionally involved in the media field since 2002 and have held senior positions therein since 2006. [annex 1 & 2] 3. The Respondent is a statutory body established by Act 29 of 2000 whose objects are set out under section 4 of that Act, having a Chairperson with defined powers. 4. Section 11 of Act 29 of 2000 provides for the post of Director who is appointed by the Respondent and who is its full time employed Chief Executive. 5. The Co-Respondent was at all material times the Chairperson of the Respondent. 6. On 23 February 2016, a private recruiting agency caused an advertisement to be published in a weekly paper inviting applications for the filling of the post of “Director” in its unnamed client's organisation styled as an established independent regulatory organisation. [annex 3]7. Laver that the unnamed “client” was in fact the Respondent which had somehow considered it appropriate in or about February 2016, whilst the Co-respondent was its Chairperson, to enlist the services of a private agency in the process of filling the post of Director which had been vacant ever since 15 December 2014. 8. On 23 February 2016 | sent my application for the post of Director, pursuant to the advertisement, to the private recruiting agency which was acknowledged by the latter on the same day. [annexes 4 & 5] 9. On 4 April 2016 | was informed by the private recruiting agency that my application had not been retained by the Respondent. [annex 6] 10. | am advised and verily believe that the Co-Respondent was appointed as Director of the Respondent on 25 March 2016 on the very day she resigned as Chairperson of the same Respondent as can be gathered from an answer made by the Prime Minister in the National Assembly on 3 May 2016. [annex 7] 11. | aver that when it was made public knowledge that the Co-Respondent had been appointed as Director, she made a statement on 29 March 2016 to a private radio which was broadcasted to the effect that when she applied for the post advertised and referred to in paragraph 6 above, she was unaware that this was in relation to the post of Director of the very organisation of which she has, at all material times, been the Chairperson. 12. | aver that it has been public knowledge that the Co-Respondent has been actively involved in politics as a declared member of a political party which is in government since December 2014. [Annex 8] 13. | aver that | fully satisfy all the criteria for the post of Director and my objective credentials far outweigh those of the co-Respondent. 14. | aver that the whole scheme designed by the Respondent for the filling of the post of Director was meant to facilitate and favour the appointment of its own Chairperson. 15. | am advised that the decision of the Respondent is fundamentally and manifestly wrong in law, being ultra vires its powers in law in its purported appointment as Director of its ‘standing Chairperson. 16. | further aver that decision of the Respondent breaches the basic duty of the Respondent to compliance with law by ensuring that the process of appointing its Director involves a fair, impartial and rational decision and not patently biased and/or patently capable of being perceived as objectively being biased. 17. | am also advised that the Respondent failed to take all relevant matters into consideration and instead considered irrelevant matters extraneous to the application. PRAYERS18. In the above mentioned circumstances, | aver that Respondent's decision is procedurally unlawful, illegal, ultra-vires, motivated by an ulterior and improper motive, ‘Wednesbury’ unreasonable and in breach of the rules of natural justice. 19. In the above compelling circumstances, it is urgent that the Supreme Court grants me leave to apply for a judicial review of the decision of Respondent: ‘A. For Leave to apply for an Order of Certiorari directing Respondent to bring before the Supreme Court the complete record of proceedings relating to the appointment of the Co-Respondent as Director of the Independent Broadcasting Authority whereby the entire decision making process is wrong in law, unfair, irrational, biased or perceptively biased, pregnant with bad faith embracing several procedural flaws having caused and still causing substantial prejudice to Applicant. 8. An order of Certiorari to quash andior set aside and/or reverse the decision making process and the decision of the Respondent to appoint the Co-Respondent as Director of the Independent Broadcasting Authority C. A Declaration that the decision taken by Respondent to appoint the Co- Respondent as Director of the Independent Broadcasting Authority was Pprocedurally improper, illegal, ultra-vires , motivated by an ulterior and improper motive, Wednesbury’ unreasonable, in breach of the rules of natural justice and biased or perceptively biased; D. Any for such other orders that the Justice of the case may require 20. | pray accordingly. Sworn by the above named Deponent At Chambers, New Court House, Port-Louis ) This day of June 2016 ) Drawn up by me. Before me. Attorney | certify that this affidavit will be filed in a case to be lodged before the Supreme Court.