<B>By Deepa BHOOKHUN</B>

Just out of interest ? how many of you knew, long before the Supreme Court judgment on the legality ? or not ? of having three deputy Prime ministers that the Constitution provided for only one? I did. Do you know how? Navin Ramgoolam himself said it. I interviewed him a few months before the general elections in 2005 (l?express of the 23rd of April) and asked him whether Xavier Duval, who was sulking at the time because he had been given no guarantees that he would be DPM, would be appointed DPM. This is what Ramgoolam, then leader of the opposition said, more than three years ago; ?I have been very clear on this. The constitution only provides for one DPM. It has happened in the past that more than one DPM was appointed. SAJ did it. I could follow suit but all will depend on the leverage of the parties that make up the Alliance sociale and for that we will need to wait for the election results.? So. I am sure Mr Bérenger, who is acting like he?s only just discovered that the earth was round, despite his assertions to the contrary, read that particular interview. Having been DPM on numerous occasions, he knows what the constitution says regarding the office of DPM.So why is he acting like he has just woken up from a self induced slumber and only just realized that Ramgoolam appointed three people as DPM when the constitution only provides for one? And why is the President, who himself set the trend in appointing unofficial DPMs, huffing and playing at being outraged when he always knew what the deal was ? that as far as window dressing goes, it looks good to have a DPM each representing the major minor groups? Whether such a thing is done or whether it should be condoned is another matter altogether. The Supreme Court was unequivocal enough in its stand. A stand that is known in law as an obiter dictum, meaning that the comments are not binding even though they could be strongly persuasive. But the fact of the matter is that the court found that the appellant had no business questioning the appointment of three DPMs. So now both SAJ and Paul Bérenger think it is their business to raise the matter. SAJ publicly says he will raise the matter with the Prime minister when he was the one who swore in the two unofficial DPMs!Bérenger and the MMM have as of Monday, decided to take the matter to court. Ah! Hypocrisy in politics! It?s a good thing it hasn?t killed anyone yet. But what puzzles me is the relentlessness with which the MMM is pursuing this matter. One would have thought there were more important issues an opposition could exploit to gain political mileage. Shows what one knows.