In March, this year, Me Jean Claude Bibi wrote to the Commission to complain of:-

1. ?The factually incorrect contents of an article signed by Miss Bhookun and published on 29 December 2006.?

2. "The comments made by Miss Bhookhun in two short articles both entitled ?OUR REPLY? in l?express on 12 February 2007 and on 15 February 2007."

3. ?The unfair omission and/or censure of my request to the Editor in Chief to publish the short official letter I received from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in an article written by me and published in l?express on 15 February 2007.?

4. ?The refusal of both Miss Bhookhun and Mr. Meetarbhan to inform the public of the outcome of an enquiry conducted by the NHRC.?

For reasons which it is not necessary to repeat here, the Commission could not hear Me Bibi?s complaint before Tuesday 4 December.

The article complained of, with the title Raddhoa exonéré, was published in l?express of 29 December 2006. Its first three paragraphs, the material parts, directly concerned Me Bibi. They read:-Raddhoa exonéré

1. Les nombreuses allégations et accusations de brutalités policières sont difficiles à prouver. L?avocat Jean Claude Bibi avait accusé le surintendant de police Prem Raddhoa de l?avoir malmené et menacé alors qu?il rendait visite à son client Bahim Azaree. 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).

2. Dans cette affaire, le rapport de la Commission des droits de l?homme conclut que le plus gros problème auquel elle était confrontée était qu?elle devait faire face à des versions contradictoires. La commission conclut aussi que son enquête démontre que la version de Jean Claude Bibi s?est trouvée affaiblie : ce dernier aurait pris trop de temps pour rapporter un cas qu?il considérait grave.

3. Un autre élément aurait aussi joué contre l?avocat plaignant, d?après la commission. Le ton chargé d?émotion des déclarations de Bahim Azaree, client de Jean Claude Bibi et témoin de l?altercation entre ce dernier et Raddhoa. La commission a considéré qu?Azaree, arrêté dans l?affaire de braquage de la bijouterie Bijoulux, n?était pas un témoin crédible.

On 12 February, 2007 l?Express published in extenso a fairly long letter of Me Bibi which, to say the least, did not respect the requirements of a "mise au point" as provided by article 289 of the Criminal Code. The Editor in Chief could very well have refused to publish it. Not only did its author ignore the delays provided by both article 289 of the Criminal Code and La Sentinelle Code of Ethics but he deliberately launched into frontal attacks verging on defamation against Miss Bhookhun as well as the National Human Rights Commission and its Chairman.

Mr. Bibi?s letter insisted on the fact that in a letter which the NHRC had addressed to him the Commission, far from saying that it had concluded that ?il n?y avait pas matière à référer l?affaire (Me Bibi?s in direct complaint) au Directeur des poursuites publiques" had, on the contrary, stated ?However, the matter has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration when the DPP?s office would decide whether to prosecute Bahim Azaree in the Bijoulux case?.

Mr. Bibi?s letter further stressed that the NHRC?s letter had been shown to Miss Bhookhun who was ?flabbergasted by the factual contradiction and agreed that the NHRC?s letter addressed to Mr. Bibi contradicted the findings faxed to her?, the alleged findings on which her article was indisputably based.

Mr. Bibi?s letter finally contained the following statement ?Miss Bhookhun got this information from the vanished document faxed from the policeman. She has promised that 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 that 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?.

Mr. Bibi thus considered that the publication of his letter ? which we repeat was published in extenso, in spite of its numerous inuendos ? would suffice to correct the inaccuracies contained in Miss Bhookun?s letter of December, 2006.

That was also the view taken by the Editor in Chief, a stand with which we agree. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Meetarbhan, Mr. Bibi is a well known Barrister-at-Law whose word must carry a lot of weight. We may add that he is remembered as somebody who even occupied the office of Attorney General.

The publication of Mr. Bibi?s letter should have been enough to correct all the inaccuracies of Miss Bhookhun?s article published one and a half months before. The long, very long letter was however followed by a short reply from Miss Bhookhun the first paragraph of which read:-

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

This "rejoinder" was enough to provoke the ?ire? of Mr. Bibi and yet another long letter from him. Same was again duly published in extenso, even if it also contained what could have been considered as objectionable matter.

Be that as it may, Mr. Bibi has, in the course of his deposition before the Committee, readily conceded that had Miss Bhookhun?s rejoinder of 15 February 2007 acknowledged the fact that she had also been shown the NHRC letter addressed to Mr. Bibi and to which he refers in his long article, he would have had no reason to complain.

We tend to agree that it is a matter for regret that Miss Bookhun did not, in her rejoinder, acknowledge the fact that although she maintained the veracity and accuracy of the facts contained in her article based on the findings which she had personally received by fax, the letter received by Mr. Bibi, and which was also seen by her own two eyes, surprisingly said that the matter had ?been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration when the DPP?s office would decide whether to prosecute Bahim Azaree in the Bijoulux case?.

It is certainly not too late for the Editorship of l?express to do so. We trust that the Editor in Chief will find an elegant formula to inform the readers that the particular affirmation of Mr. Bibi concerning the reference of his complaint to the DPP was confirmed by the NHRC?s letter which Miss Bhookhun and himself had seen.

We recommend accordingly.

L. Robert AHNEE (Chairman ), Roukaya KASENALLY, Rivaltz QUENETTE</B>

12 December 2007

<B>Note de la rédaction</B>

La Commission de médiation nous demande d?informer nos lecteurs qu?une lettre de la Commission des droits de l?homme a confirmé l?affirmation de Jean Claude Bibi selon laquelle sa plainte avait été référée au Directeur des poursuites publiques (DPP). Nous le faisons volontiers. Mais nous devons quand même rappeler que les lecteurs de «l?express» ont été informés du contenu de cette lettre à travers les deux mises au point que l?avocat nous a adressées et qui ont été publiées.

<B>Le rédacteur en chef</B>

Publicité