The Light shone in the Darkness and the Darkness said: “You’re Home early Honey!”

return-of-the-jedi-by-1darthvader-wallpaper-13526-hd-wallpapers

The Application below was delivered to the Supreme Court on Monday, the Fourth Day of February 2013. (Because Jeff Lingaya’s Life was at stake, We couldn’t wait until May 4th). It had been cleared by the Master of the Court and sworn in front of the Registrar. For about an hour, Court Officers sent Our Director was sent from pillar to post and back again around the Court buildings. He didn’t see any geese, wild or otherwise, but did become sufficiently enraged to start video recording the farce. Under threat of private  prosecution  for perverting the course of justice, the Judges’ Secretaries finally accepted the Application. However, after the Judge in Chambers had considered it for some length of time, the Application was rejected it for “vice de procédure”. Let the public give its judgement on whether or not the Judge was just.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

(Application under Article 806 of the Code de Procedure Civile)

(Application before an Honourable Judge in Chambers)

In the matter of:

WeLuvMu

6 Jubilee Apartments

Pointe aux Canonniers

APPLICANT

Versus

1. The Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development

Service to be effected at:

Ken Lee Tower

Cnr Barracks & St Georges Streets

Port Louis

RESPONDENTS

2. The (Mauritius) C.T. Power LtdService to be effected at:Pointe aux Caves

Albion

3. The Prime MinisterService to be effected at:Prime Minister’s OfficeNew Treasury BuildingIntendance Street

Port Louis

4. The Commissioner of PoliceService to be effected at:Line Barracks

Port Louis

In the presence of:
Jeff LingayaService to be effected at:Company GardensPort Louis

CO-RESPONDENT

And in the matter of:Ex Parte:

WeLuvMu

6 Jubilee Apartments

Pointe aux Canonniers

APPLICANT

Motion:

Respondent 2 is ordered to cease investing funds in the coal-fired power station at Pointe aux Caves until the outcome of a Judicial Review into the awarding of its EIA licence.

The reasons for this are fully set forth in the attached affidavit.

AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT

I, Dr Richard Luke Munisamy, residing at 6 Jubilee Apartments Pointe aux Canonniers and holder of NIC M2301688204976

Make Solemn Oath and Say That:

  1. The Applicant is a Not-for-Profit Enterprise incorporated in Mauritius, BRN C09085650, have me as its Director. It has for objectives: the protection of the environment and the advancement of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is supported in its activities by over 14,000 people with whom it communicates on an as-needed basis through a facebook page managed by a team including myself.

  2. On the Last Day of January 2013, we became aware, first hand, of the hunger strike being undertaken by the Co-Respondent to protest the decision of Respondent 1 to issue an EIA licence to Respondent 2. we were moved by the support he was receiving. Further, it was claimed He had attracted over 18,000 signatures petitioning Respondent 3 to, among other things, suspend the said EIA licence. Hence, we made a video of a speech made by the Co-Respondent, intending to broadcast it through Our facebook page.
  3. On reflection, We began to question whether some of the Co-Respondent’s so-called supporters might be using the situation to further their own agendas. Hence, we attached to our broadcast of the Co-Respondent’s speech, an appeal to the President to intervene. To date he appears to have done nothing, leading us to wonder if he is out of touch with or could not care less about Our Nation.
  4. On the First Day of February 2013, we became aware of Respondent 3’s refusal to intervene to suspend the said EIA licence. Moved by our supporters’ response to the Co-Respondent’s speech, the Applicant instructed and empowered me to intervene as its representative via a written Shareholder’s Resolution in lieue of a Special Shareholder’s Meeting in accordance with Section 117 of the Companies’ Act 2001.
  5. Our first intervention was to seek to persuade the Co-Respondent to end his hunger strike, reassuring him that we would ensure that Respondent 2’s project would never see the light of day. He would not be moved. Next we shared with him our doubts about the integrity of his so-called supporters and the possibility that they might be seeking to hasten his death. We could not shake his trust in them. Finally, we asked the Co-Respondent to make a video calling on his supporters to not react with violence in the event that his death were used to provoke riots.
  6. On the Second Day of February 2013, our concerns about the Co-Respondent’s well-being were intensified. Hence, we sought an intervention of the emergency services and proceeded to call 999 and the Emergency Response Service. To our amazement, officers manning both numbers refused to take any details and told us to report the matter to Our local police station, which We did (Pointe aux Canonniers OB 130/13, Statement folio no. 12/505565). To date, Respondent 4 appears to have done nothing in response to Our Statement, leading us to wonder whether he has hamstrung the Mauritian Police Force through total incompetence or in the service of an occult agenda.
  7. On the Third Day of February 2013, We sought legal advice about intervening through the Courts. It was recommended that We apply for leave to apply for a Judicial Review of Respondent 1’s decision to issue the EIA licence to Respondent 2 on the basis that his decision and the process by which he reached it were irrational, in that the average person, with the pertinent facts, would have acted differently and arrived at a different decision.
  8. The basis for the first assertion is that Respondent 1 did not take into account the views of the nationally recognised Maurice Ile Durable Working Group on Energy, either in person or through the publicly available report they wrote following a series of workshops held in 2011. The basis for the second assertion is that the conditions attached to the EIA licence make no mention of minimising carbon dioxide emissions.
  9. To appreciate the impact of carbon dioxide emissions, it is necessary to have a moderate understanding of MODERN physics. According to the IPCC’s last report, anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere are very likely causing the planet to warm on average and the weather patterns to change. In the longer term, these pose a significant existential threat to Our Nation as confirmed in the Environment Outlook Report 2011 published by Respondent 2’s Ministry.
  10. According to NASA’s climate change expert, James Hansen, in order to mitigate this threat, it will be necessary for the world to rapidly stop emitting carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels and engage in a massive programme of reforestation. Without fitting appropriate carbon capture and storage/sequestration technology, the operation of Respondent 2’s plant would seriously undermine Our efforts to persuade the rest of the world to take the necessary mitigation measures.
  11. It has been argued that net carbon dioxide emissions by Mauritius are insignificant compared with those of post-industrial nations, as well as those of industrialising nations, notably India and China. Such arguments are fallacious, since the pertinent unit of measure is not national but per capita. On this basis, Mauritius is one of the worst countries in the world for its rate of increase in carbon dioxide emissions, in spite of the fact that nearly 40% of our land area is devoted to growing an energy crop. This is far greater than any other country on the planet, including Brazil and much to the prejudice of our Nation’s food security and, due to the felling of trees, its ancient micro-climates.
  12. The theory of ecological thresholds states that potentially chaotic natural systems, such as global climate, can pass through inflexion points beyond which positive feedback can lead to runaway effects. In the worst case scenario in terms of warming, this could cause the extinction of all Life on Earth leaving our precious planet with a hostile atmosphere similar to Venus. Because science is not able to model chaotic systems, it is impossible to know when an ecological threshold is being approached. Hence, it is possible that the relatively small contribution of carbon dioxide emissions from Respondent 2’s plant may be the straw that breaks the camels back, pushing our planet over the precipice on a descent into Hell.
  13. Hence, the precautionary principle requires that adequate carbon capture and storage technology be included in Respondent 2’s design. The fact that neither Respondent 1 nor Respondent 3 have added this to the conditions of the EIA licence leads Us to wonder whether they are completely incompetent, they could care less about future generations or they are seeking to ensure that Respondent 2’s project remains profitable at all costs. All of these contemptible and incompatible with the National Vision of Maurice Ile Durable, as given in the Green Paper of the same name.
  14. The application for leave to apply for a Judicial Review will be based on these arguments and we are confident that Reason will prevail. However, we are concerned that the life of the Co-Respondent will be lost in the mean time. Therefore, we pray to the Court to display compassion towards the Co-Respondent and move the Court to make an Order in the form of a temporary injunction restraining Respondent 2 from investing additional funds in its plant until the outcome of the Judicial Review.
  15. We are confident that Respondent will not object to the above as it is beginning to see the writing on the wall. However, should it object, we strongly aver that the worth of the Life of the Respondent far outweighs any inconvenience that might be suffered by Respondent 2, especially bearing in mind the extensive delays it has already tolerated without recourse to lawful remedy.
  16. It is to be hoped that the Judicial Review will be sufficiently broad to cover the actions and omissions of Respondents 1, 3 and 4, and sufficiently deep to uncover the reasons thereof. Unfortunately, given recent events, it is difficult for us to be confident of this. For now, we issue NO warning and leave it to the Court to put its own house in order.