“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it,” George Orwell once said.

Paul Bérenger and Sir Anerood Jugnauth’s reaction to Jean-Mée Desveaux’s revelations about the Illovo deal tips the scales further in favour of what we have always believed: that the opposition is fine with the concept of freedom of speech, as long as it does not compromise the lily-white image it wants to convey. For as long as we were echoing all the scandals we were being served by them, everything was fi ne, thank you – and remember, nothing was too trivial for us: from official documents to mere emails exchanged between board members. For as long as Jean-Mée Desveaux was criticizing the government of the day, he was a great guy. The minute he touched a raw nerve he became the subject of all sorts of profanities unbecoming of people who aspire to lead this country one day. The words ‘bacharamercenaire’ (a mercenary fool) coming out of the mouth of someone like Sir Anerood Jugnauth is really beyond the pale.

The press conference held after Desveaux’s revelations was in fact good theatre. But the only purpose it served was to make the accused look guilty. Many of the comments which followed show that people are unfortunately still interested in shooting the messenger rather than taking the full measure of the message delivered without fear or favour. Worse, they confirm that people are only prepared to hear what they are interested to hear and that the bias is such that anything which rubs their allegiance the wrong way throws them off balance. And, once off balance, their reaction becomes primitive to the point of starting to throw mud and putting inappropriate labels on people.

Jean-Mée Desveaux was at the heart of a deal which has never stopped being controversial. He therefore is in a position to have information none of us – outside the players at the time – has. He chose to reveal it many years after the deal. So what? Does that justify all the venom spewed on him since? What should be of interest to us is whether his allegations are true or not. If they are a string of lies, he will pay for the consequences of his irresponsibility.

If, on the other hand, they are true and can be proved to be true, then I really despair for the options we will face at the next general election. That concerns me much more than whether Jean-Mée should have spoken then or kept quiet now.

If Jugnauth genuinely wants to clear his name – notice that Desveaux didn’t accuse Bérenger; the latter chose to jump in the trenches and fight a war which, strictly speaking, is not his – then there is only one way: he sues Desveaux for a symbolic rupee and the case comes up quickly enough for the citizens of this country to know where things stand.

Naturally, we have – up till now – heard a lot of venom spewing, mud slinging and character assassination seasoned with a huge amount of speculation about what an ordinary citizen like Jean-Mée Desveaux wants to do with his life – which is none of our business by the way – and little in terms of whether the allegations are true or not. Isn’t it time this chase-your-tail switching and vote-catching posturing stopped and we are given what we deserve: the plain truth. Not from the foul mouths of politicians but from our courts of justice. Many of our politicians do not have any credibility left to trade. So why should we believe them?

weekly@lasentinelle.mu