On 13 January 2008, after Mr Ramjuttun?s claim that he should eventually share the office of Prime Minister with Mr Paul Bérenger of the MMM, l?express-dimanche published an article entitled Le phénomène Ramjuttun.

The article started with the following opening paragraphs :-

« Dinesh Ramjuttun, tout comme son ancien mentor Harish Boodhoo, est l?un de ces politiciens caméléons qui envahissent le paysage politique mauricien. Tenace, le verbe facile, la carapace endurcie, il peut frapper sous la ceinture. Il s?emploie sans scrupule à démolir ses adversaires avec les méthodes qui lui sont propres. »

On 15 January 2008, Mr Harish Boodhoo wrote to the Editor in Chief to take strong exception to the opening paragraph of the article. He expressed the view that it was highly defamatory to compare Dr Ramjuttun to him and listed the reasons why, in his view, Dr Ramjuttun should not be compared to him. He ended his letter with an attack of the integrity on Mr Elwyn Chutel, the author of the impugned article.

Mr Boodhoo?s letter was not published. The then Editor in Chief of l?express-dimanche did not even consider it necessary to publish a note about the protest he had received.

On 25 January 2008, Mr Boodhoo wrote to the Complaints Committee to complain about the newspaper?s « fin de non-recevoir » of his protest.

On 8 April, the Complaints Committee heard Mr Boodhoo as well as Mr Rabin Bhujun, l?express-dimanche new Editor in Chief, who, after expressing the view that the word « caméléon » was the proper one to qualify those « qui changent d?opinion politique » further claimed that Mr Boodhoo?s letter could not be published because it contained defamatory allegations against both Dr Ramjuttun and Mr Chutel.

Suffice it to say that the Committee cannot agree with Mr Bhujun?s contention that the word « caméléon » has no pejorative meaning.

We shall content ourselves to refer to « Le Robert, dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française » where « caméléon », in its figurative sense, is defined as « Personne qui change de conduite, d?opinion, de language au gré de l?intérêt ».

We must however concede that Mr Boodhoo did not content himself to stress that he could not be taxed of having changed « au gré de l?intérêt ». His letter contained prima facie highly defamatory statements of both Dr Ramjuttun and Mr Chutel and could not be published in toto.

It is all the same a matter for regret that the Editorship of « l?express-dimanche » did not think it their duty to inform their readers that they had received a protest from Mr Boodhoo who did not accept the comparison with Dr Ramjuttun and who insisted that he had never changed opinion « au gré de l?intérêt ». That was indeed the gist of Mr Boodhoo?s message and he was clearly entitled to insist that it should be recalled to the readers of « l?express-dimanche ».

L. Robert AHNEE, Roukaya KASENALLY, Rivaltz QUENETTE

Chambers, this 18th of April 2008.