Ramgoolam Claims Deputy PM Post is “Optional” Despite Constitutional Advice

Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam has sparked a constitutional row by suggesting the office of Deputy Prime Minister is not a mandatory requirement, despite explicit language in the nation’s founding documents.

Speaking at the Tamil New Year celebrations at the Mahatma Gandhi Institute on Wednesday, Mr Ramgoolam addressed the vacancy left by Paul Bérenger’s resignation on 20 March.

“There is no DPM post. It is not an obligation to have one,” the Prime Minister stated, appearing to challenge the established executive structure.

The remarks have drawn immediate fire from legal experts who point to Section 59(1) of the Constitution, which states:

“There shall be a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister who shall be appointed by the President.”

Constitutional scholar Parvèz Dookhy described the Prime Minister’s stance as a “flagrant violation” of the law.

He argued that the wording of the Constitution is imperative rather than optional.

“The response is yes; there must be a Deputy Prime Minister at all times,” Mr Dookhy said.

“The Constitution does not leave any ambiguity regarding the simultaneous existence of key executive posts.”

The vacancy has now persisted for nearly a month, a delay Mr Dookhy labels an “institutional anomaly.”

While he conceded that a day or two might be required for administrative transitions, he insisted that the post should have been filled immediately.

He further noted that the government’s very existence relies on three mandatory pillars: the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Attorney-General.

“Without these, a government cannot exist,” he warned, adding that the Leader of the Opposition could now petition the Supreme Court to force a nomination.

Echoing these concerns, former Speaker Ajay Daby warned that the absence of a DPM leaves the executive as an “improperly constituted body.”

While Mr Daby noted that the Constitution does not prescribe a specific timeframe for a new appointment, he maintained that the rule of law requires the post to be filled to ensure the Cabinet is complete.

As the debate intensifies, some observers suggest the government may be operating under an alternative legal interpretation provided by the State Law Office.

However, for now, the Prime Minister’s refusal to fill the second-highest office in the land remains a point of significant constitutional friction.

Source: Defi Media