1. I refer to a short article signed by Miss Deepa Bhookhun and published in your newspaper on 29 December 2006. I also refer to a one-page interview by the same journalist published in l?express on 6 January 2007. I have to respond to both items for several reasons that I set out below and I ask for your indulgence as my response is necessarily lengthy. The short article appears to deal with the decision of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in respect of a complaint made by me in September 2007 against a number of officers of the MCIT, including Mr. Raddhoa, that was referred by the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice to the NHRC. Ms. Bhookhun did take care to phone me whilst I was overseas to request my comments. I informed her I could not comment because I was not yet in presence of the NHRC?s decision that I only read on or about 14 January 2007 upon my return to Mauritius. The title of the article was ?Raddhoa exonéré.? The last sentence of its first paragraph states as follows:

?La Commission des droits de l?homme a conclu qu?il n?y avait pas matière à référer l?affaire au Directeur des Poursuites publiques (DPP).

This statement is factually incorrect. A few days after my return from overseas, I took cognizance of the contents of a one-paragraph letter from the NHRC informing me of its decision in respect of my complaint against certain officers of the MCIT. The last sentence of the letter reads as follows:

?However, the matter has been referred to the Director of Prosecutions for consideration when the DPP?s Office would decide whether to prosecute B. I. Ajaree in the Bijoulux case.?

The NHRC?s letter, admittedly a confused and confusing document, nevertheless directly contradicts on the most material point what was written and signed by your journalist, Ms. Deepa Bhookun. I am attaching for your information a copy of the NHRC?s letter.

2. I must also explain that upon reading Ms. Deepa Bhookhun?s article, I contacted her by telephone to discuss this important contradiction amicably. She assured me of her good faith and that her article had been based on a copy of the findings and deliberations of the NHRC with the signatures of four members of the NHRC. She had no reasons to doubt the authenticity of the document and of the signatures as it had been faxed to her by no less than a police officer, a fan of the Prime Minister, who somehow holds the rank of Superintendent. I showed Ms. Bhookhun the original of the NHRC?s letter and we compared its contents with her own article. She was, like me, flabbergasted by the factual contradiction and agreed that the NHRC?s letter addressed to me contradicted the contents of the findings faxed to her. As proof of her good faith, she undertook to show me the copy of the findings of the NHRC faxed to her by a policeman who is apparently keen to circulate ?information? to journalists. I drove to l?express headquarters at Riche-Terre, as previously arranged with Ms. Deepa Bhookhun, to have a look at the faxed NHRC?s findings. She searched among some papers on her desk for some seconds and then regretfully announced that the faxed findings had ?disappeared? and might even have been thrown in the rubbish basket ?by accident?.

3. I have to explain that Mr. Seetulsing, the Chairman of the NHRC, has always insisted that the proceedings and findings of fact of the NHRC are and must remain secret and not even a complainant nor his/her Counsel is entitled to have a copy thereof. You will therefore understand my astonishment when Ms. Bhookhun stated that she had received a faxed copy thereof from a fan of the Prime Minister. It would seem that an exception has been made for a police superintendent accused of brutality who promptly faxed it to Ms. Deepa Bhookhun and, by sheer coincidence, a week later, the same police superintendent was gratified with an interview conducted by the same Ms. Bhookhun. Quite a small world!

4. May I also comment further on Ms. Bhookhun?s article? It starts with the general statement that allegations/accusations of police brutality are difficult to prove. This is true in some cases just as it is not true in other cases. It obviously depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, on the availability of witnesses, on the quality of their evidence, and, of course, on the intellectual honesty of those who do the judging. It is not superfluous to add that intellectual honesty itself requires considerable courage and independence, particularly financial and political independence. As a rule, mere nominees who are not appointed by an independent institution after a transparent process of selection can hardly claim to be independent or to be seen to be independent from the person/politician who nominated them. It should be remembered that both the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Union have insisted and are still insisting that the mode of appointment of members of the NHRC should be changed in order to ensure its independence.

5. Another factual error in Ms. Bhookun?s article is that I had accused Superintendent Raddhoa of ill-treating and threatening me ?alors qu?il [JC Bibi] rendait visite à son client Bahim Azaree?. I complained that I was first insulted and threatened by a police sergeant known as Ramsamy and that, subsequently, Superintendent Raddhoa intervened and launched into a diatribe laced with obscenities against Supreme Court judges, against some barristers, politicians and myself and then he ordered my arrest, even though none of his men carried out his order. This incident took place after my client, accompanied by me, surrendered to the police. Contrary to what is stated in the article, I was not ?visiting?my client whose name is Ajaree and not Azaree. I had accompanied him to the office of the MCIT.

6. According to the article, my version of the incident was ?affaiblie? (weakened) allegedly because I had taken too much time to report a case I considered to be serious. You will note that there is no mention of this alleged ?affaiblissement? in the letter addressed to me by the NHRC. Presumably, this may be found in the mysterious copy of ?the findings? faxed by the said policeman to your journalist and that has since vanished. In any event, it is pertinent to note that Section 4 (2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act provides as follows:

?The Commission shall not exercise its functions and powers into any matter after the expiry of 2 years from the date on which the act or omission which is the subject of a complaint is alleged to have occurred.?

A complainant has therefore 2 years to decide whether or not to file his complaint. In my own case, having publicly previously expressed my view that the NHRC lacked independence and that its capacity to investigate complaints properly was ?not far from zero?, I did not address any complaint to the NHRC, but, at the request of the Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice, I sent him a statement in respect of the unlawful behaviour of some MCIT officers. The Attorney-General decided, with undue optimism, to refer the matter to the NHRC for investigation. I was not and I am not that naïve to expect too much from the NHRC. Its report on the death of Mr. R. Ramlogun whilst in police custody was most edifying: the NHRC managed somehow to avoid investigating the role of the MCIT?s leadership and its modus operandi and the NHRC was not concerned to find out how the death of Mr. Ramlogun was part of a pattern of police violence against suspects, detainees and even witnesses. A pattern that has yet to be stopped.

7. The article goes on to mention that Mr. Ajaree was ?emotional? and this partly explains the ?findings? of the Commission. There is no mention of an emotional witness in the official letter addressed to me by the NHRC. Moreover, contrary to what is stated in the article, I never complained there was an ?altercation? between me and Raddhoa. I stated that the latter expressed his views loudly in obscene language on various subjects for my benefit and for that of his colleagues present. All those present had no choice but to listen to Raddhoa?s monologue. I did not respond but watched him vociferating.

8. Ms. Deepa Bhookhun also wrote that Mr. Ajaree was not considered by the NHRC to be a ?credible? witness. Again, I do not find such an explanation in the letter addressed to me. Perhaps Ms. Bhookhun got this information from the vanished document faxed from the policeman. She has promised me she would do her best to find the lost document. I waited for a few days and no document has so far been produced. I deduce it is unlikely to pop up again and I have informed her that I have no alternative but to address this present letter for publication in order to correct the inaccuracies, to put it mildly, contained in her article.

9. I must also observe that it is quite possible that your journalist may have been manipulated, willingly or not, to commit the factual errors mentioned above, though I am surprised she wrote what she did without reference to the contents of the official letter addressed to me. You may also have noticed, as mentioned above, that the letter I received from the NHRC is confused and confusing. It states that ?after due inquiry the Commission has found that your complaint against the MCIT of serious (my emphasis) human rights violation has not been substantiated.? Are your readers and we ourselves to understand that a human rights violation did occur but that it was not ?serious? enough? Indeed, in its letter, the NHRC concedes there was an ?incident? but that ?it was not of such gravity as alleged?. It seems therefore that I have proved the incident took place but not its ?gravity?.

10. I confess I have vaguely wondered if Mr. Seetulsing, who is hopefully well versed in the laws of gravity, would consider it a grave matter if one policeman were to insult him and threaten to kill him in the course of an ?incident?. In any event, the letter from the NHRC is not very helpful. Just as it states there was no serious human rights violation (implying logically that there could have been one that was not serious), it states also confusedly that an incident did take place without saying one word what the incident was about except that it ?was not of such gravity as alleged?. Above all, I reported facts to the Attorney-General in respect of an incident involving insults and threats. I did not report ?gravity?. The NHRC is obliged by Section 4 (1) (a) of the Human Rights Protection Act to inquire into all acts and omissions that violate any human rights. The law, as it is, makes no distinction made between serious human rights violations and less serious ones. Before determining whether a human rights violation is serious or not, it must first be established whether or not there has been a violation. The NHRC prudently fails to do that. In Mr. Seetulsing?s logic, he can be expected to find that a woman is not very pregnant, just a little bit, maybe since a few days. In my case, the NHRC has innovated, even though the logic of its innovation is worse than dubious: it is suspiciously bizarre. The NHRC has also discovered its new mission: to detect the occurrence of a human rights violation by measuring its seriousness with the laws of gravity.

11. Finally, may I remark that the last sentence of the NHRC?s letter does not make sense at all. Both the logic and the grammar are absurd. It states that ?the matter has been referred [past tense] to the DPP for consideration when the DPP?s Office would decide whether [future and conditional] to prosecute B. I. Ajaree in the Bijoulux case.? Does the NHRC know the date when the DPP would take a decision in the Bijoulux case? Does the DPP tell Mr. Seetulsing when it takes a decision in any case? Yet, we read that the matter has already been referred and at the same time, quite absurdly, we are told that the timing of the referral to the DPP will be when the DPP would consider whether to prosecute Mr. Ajaree or not. Nonsense, is it not? Confusing, is it not? I opt for confusing nonsense.

12. You will realize that the delay in forwarding this letter is largely due to the time it took to meet with Ms. Bhookhun as well as waiting in vain to be shown, as she promised, for the findings faxed by the policeman. I would therefore be most grateful if you could publish in extenso what I have written so that your readers may have an accurate knowledge of the facts as well as to understand whatever is understandable from the article based on secret findings faxed to your journalist that have vanished as well as from the NHRC?s official letter, though quite real and tangible, is just plain ridiculous.

Jean-Claude BIBI

OUR REPLY

Bibi?s misplaced contention

L?express maintains the veracity and accuracy of the facts contained in the article published on the 29th of December. The article was based on the findings of the Human Rights Commission, a copy of which, I saw with my own two eyes.

Mr Bibi takes it upon himself to state that SP Raddhoa was the one who gave us a copy of the findings. We leave him the responsibility of this statement. Jean Claude Bibi will no doubt appreciate that we are under no obligation to divulge our sources to him. Besides this, there is no issue as far as we are concerned. However, if Jean Claude Bibi is of the opinion that our article is ?inconsistent? with the official letter the HRC sent him, surely then, his contention should be with the Commission and not with us.

Deepa BHOOKHUN