“Some doctors must have been absent when their colleagues took the hippocratic oath.”

The MITD saga is the shaggy dog story that will never reach a punch line. And frankly, we have had our fill. At the heart of it all, let’s not forget, is a minor whose life has become the topic of voyeurism and cheap politics.

Let’s look at the facts. There was a Fact Finding Committee (FFC) chaired by a magistrate. When her name was mentioned in parliament, the opposition did not question her credibility or her impartiality. They could have. They didn’t.

There was a medical report presented by a doctor who examined the young girl. I do not personally trust all doctors as some of them, we know from experience, must have been absent when their colleagues took the Hippocratic Oath. We have seen some of them rush to the rescue of big crooks, stating – under oath – that their ‘patients’ have been hit by a mysterious disease which has turned them into a vegetable and rendered them unable to face justice or ever pay for their crimes. But the opposition did not question the credibility or impartiality of the doctor either. And there was, according to the medical report – which again the opposition did not contest – no evidence of any sexual intercourse. We will not delve into the various chapters of the Kama Sutra here to explain what might or might not have happened. That is irrelevant in today’s debate.

So, if the MITD teacher is guilty as charged and there is a big cover up going on to get him off the hook, what evidence did the opposition present in parliament? Frankly, they were grasping at straws. They highlighted the procedural failings of the MITD – something which, admittedly, was rather embarrassing for the government. The prime minister himself admitted that the MITD head – whose name he lowered his voice to mumble – should have alerted the Child Development Unit before the inquiry started. Besides, the report itself talked about the authorities’ “failure to manage the problem efficiently”. But these procedural failings are not, in themselves, proof of the teacher’s guilt.

Then the opposition members started shooting in all directions. What with the arrests of the teacher who blew the whistle on her colleague and the psychologist who followed through with the case. There are questions worth raising here: Did the teacher have an axe to grind with her colleague or was she genuinely motivated by a disinterested desire to help the pupil? Was the signature on the letter given to the police forged or did the person who signed it retract their statement? But these questions are unlikely to find answers in our national assembly.

Oh, now the bombshell which Pravind Jugnauth – in his usual please-allow-me-to-remain-relevant style – dropped at the national assembly: the records of thousands of SMSs and hundreds of telephone calls exchanged between the teacher and his pupil – pity not everyone is lucky enough to have such ‘caring’ teachers – but why weren’t these telephone records – as well as the frankly indecent recordings which have for weeks now been an open secret – presented to the FFC? The answer is simple: this is not about the truth or protecting our children from sexual predators. It is about political survival.

As for making the report on the young girl public, gosh, where is the bucket? This is cheap voyeurism at its worst! I hope the leader of the opposition takes up the prime minister on his offer to allow him to see the report to rule out any foul play and keep it as confidential as it deserves to be. Those who are underage are entitled to privacy. Surely there are better ways to remain politically relevant?!

weekly@lasentinelle.mu