IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of: Hon, Pravind Kumar Jugnauth Plaintiff vs 1. The State of Mauritius 2, Assistant Commissioner of Police P. Vuddamalay Defendants And in the presence of: 1. Yatindra Nath Varma 2. Sheilabai Bappoo Co-Defendants DEMAND OF PARTICULARS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS, DEMAND OF PARTICULARS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS Under paragraphs 6 to 16 of the Plaint with Summons QI. Defendants move for communication of the relevant extracts from Hansard pertaining to the parliamentary debates of 17 November 2012 and/or any documentary evidence to support the averments contained in the said paragraphs. Under paragraph 17 of the Plaint with Summons Q2. Defendants move for full and detailed particulars of: (@) the replies of the then Minister of Education and Human Resources (hereinafter referred to as “the then Minister”) which were allegedly evasive; and (b) the evasive replies from which the then Minister allegedly appeared to be protecting Mr Narain Chedumbrum. Under paragraph 18 of the Plaint with Summons Q.3. Defendants move for full and detailed particulars of: (a) the alleged incident which occurred on 10 December 2012; (b) the press conference allegedly held on 19 December 2012 by Co- Defendant No.2;Q4. © @ 30 the alleged stance of the then Leader of Opposition on the Nandanee Soomack affair; and the alleged criticisms made by Co-Defendant No. 2 towards the then Leader of Opposition. Defendants move for communication of evidence, including any transcript of the recordings with respect to the press conference allegedly held on 19 December 2012 by Co-Defendant No.2. Under paragraph 19 of the Plaint with Summons Qs. Q6. Defendants move for full and detailed particulars of: @ ) the press conference allegedly held by Plaintiff on 21 December 2012, including: (the time the press conference was held; Gi) __ who convened the press conference; Gii) who was convened to attend the press conference; and (iv) the names of the persons who were present at the press conference; and the criticisms allegedly made by Plaintiff regarding the stance taken by Co-Defendant No. 2 and other female members of the Labour party. Defendants move for communication of: @ (b) the names of the other female members of the Labour party referred to in the said paragraph; and evidence, including any transcript of the recordings of the press conference allegedly held on 21 December 2012 by Plaintiff. Under paragraph 20 of the Plaint with Summons Q7. Defendants move for full and detailed particulars in support of the alleged close links between Mr Narain Chedumbrun and two then cabinet Ministers. Under paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Plaint with Summons Q8. Defendants move for communication of the recording together with a certified transcript of the statement of the presenter and the relevant extract of the press conference. Under paragraph 23 of the Plaint with Summons Qs. Quo. Defendants move for communication of the time at which the alleged complaint was made by Co-Defendant No. 2 assisted by Co-Defendant No. 1 Defendants move for communication of a copy of the alleged complaint filed against Plaintiff on 21 December 2012.Under paragraph 24 of the Plaint with Summons QUI. Defendants move for communication of: (a) the time at which Defendant No. 2 became aware that a complaint was allegedly forthcoming; (&) the name of the person who informed Defendant No, 2 that a complaint was allegedly forthcoming; (©) the name of the officer who was allegedly sent by Defendant No. 2 to Beau Bassin Police Station to retrieve a copy of the complaint; (d) the place where the officer, who was allegedly sent by Defendant No. 2, was posted; and (©) the time at which the said officer called at Beau Bassin Police Station. Under paragraph 25 of the Plaint with Summons Q.12. Defendants move for communication of: (@) the name of the officer who was allegedly sent by Defendant No. 2 to deliver a convocation letter; and (&) copy of the convocation letter bearing reference OB814/12 CCID. Under paragraph 26 of the Plaint with Summons Q.13. Defendants move for communication of a copy of the letter dated 26 December 2012. Q.14. At what time and how was the letter sent to Defendant No. 2? Defendant move for communication of documentary evidence in support thereof. Under paragraph 28 of the Plaint with Summons QuUS. At what time and where did Defendant No. 2 allegedly instruct Inspector Rughoonundun and PS Narain to go to Plaintiff’s house to arrest him as averred? Q.16. Who informed Plaintiff that Defendant No. 2 had allegedly sent Inspector Rughoonundun and PS Narain to Plaintiff's residence to arrest him and take him to the CCID Headquarters. Under paragraph 29 of the Plaint with Summons Q.17. Was Plaintiff arrested? Q.18. What were the fundamental rights which, according to Plaintiff, were allegedly being breached?