Surendra Dayal v Pravind Kumar Jugnauth and 5 others (Mauritius)

For the purposes of Representation of the People Act 1958 (Mauritius), a publicly announced manifesto promise conferring a financial benefit is not bribery merely because it is intended to win votes. Section 64(1) targets corrupt vote-buying: there must be a private inducement and a quid pro quo or bargain between candidate and elector. The court must assess all surrounding circumstances; no fixed test applies. Relevant factors include publicity, prior debate, manifesto context, breadth of benefit, timing, conditionality, private funding, future political contingencies and reasonableness. Treating under section 64(2) requires corrupt intention to influence voting and proof that a person was in fact corrupted. Ordinary nationwide campaigning and an annual public event did not establish bribery or treating.

The appellant was an unsuccessful candidate in the 2019 Mauritius National Assembly election. He petitioned under the Representation of the People Act 1958 (Mauritius), challenging the election of three political opponents on grounds of bribery and treating.

The Supreme Court of Mauritius dismissed the petition on 12 August 2022. The appeal concerned promises to increase the basic retirement pension, accelerate public-sector pay recommendations and pay performance bonuses, together with free food and drink provided at an annual national event for older persons. The central issues were whether the promises amounted to bribery and whether the hospitality amounted to corrupt treating.

Appeal dismissed on all grounds. The Board accepted the Supreme Court’s factual findings and found no material error of law.

1. Bribery. Under section 64(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1958 (Mauritius), the fact that a proposal represents money or valuable consideration and is designed to win votes does not, without more, establish bribery. Normal public electoral campaigning, including selling a party manifesto or government programme, is distinct from corrupt vote-buying. The words in order to induce require a quid pro quo or bargain under which consideration is conferred in return for voting in a particular way.
2. Construction. The absence of the word corruptly from the first limb of section 64(1) does not remove the requirement for corrupt conduct. Corrupt intention may be inferred from proof of the corrupt bargain itself. The provision must be construed purposively, in context and against practical consequences. A literal and mechanistic construction would produce absurd results by making ordinary political campaigning impossible and undermining free and fair elections. The Board distinguished the different context in Simpson v Yeend (1869) LR 4 QB 626, where a private bargain was evident.
3. Assessment of electoral promises. Whether bribery or treating has occurred is a question of fact and degree. There is no hard and fast test. Relevant matters include publicity, prior political debate, manifesto status, public importance, breadth of impact, timing, vote-specific conditionality, bargaining, private funding, future political contingencies and deception or exaggeration. The Board endorsed the relevant factors identified in Brown v Hartlage 456 US 45 (1982). Cogent evidence will ordinarily be required before a political candidate is found guilty of bribery.
4. Application to bribery. The promises were made publicly, had been debated, appeared in manifestos, concerned matters of public interest and applied nationwide. They were not contingent on particular electors voting for the respondents, involved no private funding or bargaining, and depended on future governmental and parliamentary action. They therefore amounted to normal electoral campaigning, not bribery.
5. Treating. Section 64(2) requires corrupt intention to influence voting and proof that a person was in fact corrupted. The surrounding circumstances are relevant. Applying the principle in Mamoojee v Walter [1964] MR 58, the respondents were not shown to have supplied, authorised or been party to the provision of food, drink or transport. The event was an established annual national celebration organised by the Ministry of Social Security, and there was no evidence that any voter was influenced. The allegation of treating therefore failed.

• Privy Council: On 16 October 2023, the Board dismissed the appeal on all grounds.
• Supreme Court of Mauritius: On 12 August 2022, the court dismissed the appellant’s election petition.