If there is one person who can most legitimately talk about the IBA Amendment Act and the freedom of the press, it is Jean Claude de l’Estrac. De l’Estrac has been the chairman of the parliamentary select committee on the liberalisation  of the airwaves in the 80’s, he has been a journalist, an editor-in-chief, chairman of the Media Trust and the first president of Radio One, the first private radio in Mauritius. He has always been fierce in his defence of the freedom of speech. We talk to him about this amendment, the state of our democracy and where from here…

The IBA Amendment Act has been signed into law after being given the presidential assent. As a former media professional and the initiator and the first president of Radio One, what do you think the radios should be doing today?
I don’t see what they can do except going to court to challenge clauses of the Act that may be contradicting the right of expression and, in some instances, usurping the power of our courts of justice. They should fight as one and show solidarity with each other. I don’t know who that silly advisor who incited the MBC-TV to declare war on all radio stations and on all the mainstream newspapers in one go is. Government will pay a heavy price for that blunder.

In the middle of this war, Top FM radio has had its licence renewed in spite of the fears. Was that a well-calculated strategy to keep it on leach or were the reactions to the Amendment to the IBA Act a storm in a teacup?
I don’t have first-hand knowledge of government’s strategy but I won’t say that there have been over-reactions. Licensing is only one of the several issues raised by the amendments and perhaps not the most open to criticism. The whole exercise has raised legitimate questions about the real intention of government although the prime minister, in parliament, has tried to reassure the media.

Which he failed to do. But that will perhaps not deter the government’s next step, which is probably setting up a Press Council. Do you think there is a need for a regulatory body for the press?
I have been advocating the need for a self-regulatory body for the press for many years. This is what occurred in mature democracies. When I was chairman of the Media Trust – those were the days when the chairman was elected by editors-in-chief of newspapers – I proposed the setting up of a Press Council on the model of the British Press Complaints Commission. I invited a former director of the commission to advise us. Ken Morgan produced a report which is still very relevant today. Unfortunately, conservative and ill-informed journalists torpedoed the initiative. I warned them at the time: if the profession does not accept to self-regulate on the basis of a Code of Ethics, then the risk is that the State will want to do it. Which is perilous. I see no reason why the media should be the only institution to have only rights and no obligations, though under the existing stringent and often archaic laws, the press is made to account for its conduct.

The regulation you are talking about is different to what the government seems to have in mind, isn’t it?
Yes, the press needs to be regulated by the profession itself. Not by the State. This is the norm in democracies that respect the freedom of expression and expect a high level of integrity and respect of ethics by professionals of the media. What when there are infringes to their own ethics?  I see so many of these daily and I am truly horrified. Why is it that the journalists should be the only professionals opposed to having their practices reviewed by their peers, like lawyers do through their Bar Council, or doctors through the Medical Council? But I am not optimistic, the media is even more divided than the opposition…

“There is a clear political strategy to take full control of the State apparatus and to weaken the counter-powers. Even private sector institutions are plagued.”

I don’t think journalists are opposed to self-regulation. What they will not accept – even if they are divided as you say – is government regulation. You are aware that whatever ‘independent’ institution the government puts in place to regulate anything – anything at all – will have a political nominee at its head who will not have any independence whatsoever, aren’t you 
You are wrong. Some journalists are adamantly and arrogantly opposed to any idea of self-regulation. But let us be fair. We derogatorily call “political nominee” any person nominated to any post, including persons nominated to bodies deemed to be “independent” as prescribed by law. The mere fact of being appointed by the prime minister or a minister does not make of a nominee a political stooge. Unless s/he behaves as one.

Isn’t that what is happening these days?
Yes, our system of governance is becoming completely dysfunctional because the prime minister prefers stooges. Only then he feels reassured. We are yet to see a political appointee to an “independent” institution showing his independence.

As a former journalist and chief editor, you lived some great times and great fights, particularly during the Newspapers and Periodicals (Amendment Act). Do you see journalists today – that you qualify as divided – rallying together to fearlessly fight such attempts to the freedom of speech?
This has happened before when Sir Anerood Jugnauth’s government, in 1984, tried to silence criticism by financially stifling the written press. The government of the day had to face a united press supported by public opinion. Journalists from all quarters took to the streets.

 History repeats itself. If the media does not unite now and fights as one man, it is doomed. For many years, l’express, for instance, has been the subject of government’s financial boycott under both Navin Ramgoolam and the Jugnauths but there has never been any expression of solidarity. Now is the time to unite as both the written press and radio stations are all financially stressed and politically threatened.

Every time we talked about democracy you stressed that going to the polls every four or five years is not enough to define a democracy. Where are we today when it comes to the checks and balances you have always insisted on?
In a very sorry state! Various bodies, public and private, supposed to be pillars of democracy by the checks and balances they are called upon to offer, have become very weak institutions peopled by flunkeys of ministers. There is a clear political strategy to take full control of the State apparatus and to weaken the counter-powers. Even private sector institutions are plagued. Think of the scandalous nomination of the secretary general of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

“In our quasi-presidential system, the general election is always a confrontation between the outgoing prime minister and his challenger. That’s why some people have not ruled out Navin Ramgoolam, in spite of all his weaknesses.”

So we are left with the Judiciary and the Office of the DPP…Can you think of other institutions that have retained their independence?
There are some; I think of the Office of the Electoral Commissioner…until lately, I used to think of Statistics Mauritius as an independent body. I am not too sure anymore. I have known very independent-minded public servants. They are now an endangered breed.

What about the presidency?
I’d better say nothing…

How did we get to this state? Slowly but surely or overnight? What exactly happened?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, used to say Lord Acton, a way of saying that unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it. It means that those in power do not always have the people’s best interests at heart. They say so publicly but work for their own interests privately. I am afraid this is the main risk confronting the nation.

During this third or fourth wave we have been going through, there has been a lot of criticism of the action of the authorities in dealing with patients in hospitals and massaging the figures of the sick and dead. What is your take on that?
This pandemic has been a great challenge to all governments everywhere on the planet. No country was really prepared to deal with this new virus and its never-ending variants. By and large, Mauritius has not done badly. Everyone agrees that vaccination is key to fighting the virus. On that score, the country has done extremely well.  And if we go by the report of the French team from Réunion who inspected our services at the ENT hospital, the overall picture is relatively satisfactory in the circumstances. I also find that government’s decision to propose the Pfizer vaccines as a third dose to the elderly as most welcome.

That didn’t prevent France from putting us on the scarlet red list, did it?
In fact, if we go by the mortality rate in the world, visitors from France are safer here than in their own country. But the 1,300 000 virologists of Mauritius won’t agree that the country is not the graveyard they have been describing nor will the great specialists of the press…

Why do you think we were taken off the list?
I have read some silly extrapolations about Tromelin. I am sure other factors have been at play. The fact that the French decision has been announced by a minister following an inter-ministerial meeting tends to indicate that there may have been an element of diplomacy in the reversal following pressure in high quarters from Mauritius, probably after the green light of the Conseil de défense sanitaire. I am also extrapolating but hopefully on more solid grounds.

Talking about health, particularly the purchase of equipment and medication, you would have thought that after the first procurement scandal and the consequences that has had on our system, things would change. Now there is another blatant scandal about the import of Molnupiravir. What exactly is the government playing at?
This new political pill will be very hard to swallow. Whatever the excuses, it is unacceptable that public money is seen to be squandered so unashamedly in broad daylight. It looks like a hold-up. A newcomer, a company based in Long Mountain, incorporated only six months ago, with no track record in such a sensitive trade, gets a multimillion-rupee contract to sell to government a pill nine times more expensive than what is obtainable on the market although we have seen huge price discrepancies in formal biddings. What is even more troubling to me is the revelation that nearly one million pills had already been ordered by the newcomer before the contract was awarded.  The obvious question is how come? The vicious one is in whose interest?

Don’t you think these scandals will play against the government at the next junction?
I am not so sure. A few rupees more in the pockets of electors – their own money taken from the reserve funds of their children – distributed to them at the right moment, will probably do the trick. I don’t think that the majority of electors are motivated by issues of integrity and transparency. How I would love to be wrong!

But in these scandals, there are those who are devouring contracts and there are those at the expense of whom this is done…
Those at the expense of whom this is done are not their “dimoun” according to their favourite parlance. The patronage system in place is certainly welcomed by the MSM electors. They like the idea that it’s their turn to have the cake.

An opposition on its knees and shooting in all directions, a government consolidating a support base through nominations, contracts and favours, extending its hold on all institutions and accumulating wealth…what would prevent it from winning the next election hands down?
If you put a pistol to my head now, my reply would be “nothing”. But general elections are three years away. That’s an eternity in politics.

Can you see a new trend?
Yes. Maybe things are changing: when you see government confidential documents being leaked to the opposition, that means that some public servants have started to think that government days are numbered. And if the opposition parties find a credible and mature challenger to Pravind Jugnauth, then it will be another gameplay altogether. The coming together of parties is necessary but it will not be sufficient. In our quasi-presidential system, the general election is always a confrontation between the outgoing prime minister and his challenger. That’s why some people have not ruled out Navin Ramgoolam, in spite of all his weaknesses.