Therefore, the decisions cited by Lord Steyn do indeed “help to give important colour” fo the guarantee that Mauritius is to be a democratic state. In particular, itis a hallmark of the modern idea of a democratic state that there should be a separation of powers between the legislature and the executive, on the one hand. and the judiciary, on the other.” (Emphasis is mine.) Further, as the Attorney General who is, pursuant to section 69 of the Constitution, the “principal legal adviser to the Government of Mauritius” I can confidently state that the doctrine of separation of powers as explained in the case of Khoyratty above applies in Mauritius. Your letter acknowledges, Mr. Boolell, DPP, is the subject of an investigation conducted by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), an anti- corruption body which acts independently of Government. You will also acknowledge that Mr. Boolell has sought and obtained relief from the Supreme Court, which in itself, shows that the doctrine of separation of powers applies in Mauritius. Given that Mr. Boolell has entered a case before the Supreme Court and the matter being sub- Judice, it would be improper for me to comment any further on the pending case. I would invite you, as a responsible international association established at the United ‘Nations Offices in Vienna to also respect the Supreme Court of Mauritius as an institution and further, the Republic of Mauritius as a sovereign and democratic State. 1 take note that as at today at 10 AM GMT the IAP has not yet issued , on its website, (iap-association.org) any public statement reflecting the contents of your letter. In spite of the above, the contents of your said letter have been given wide publicity (and quoted verbatim) on radio and in the press in Mauritius since yesterday before I had the opportunity to take cognizance of it. My Office will be issuing a public statement reflecting the contents of this letter. ‘Yours truly, RR Yertigadoo Attorney-General