Sunday Times Retracts Two Articles and Apologises to Soodhun

The Mauritian weekly newspaper Sunday Times has been forced to retract two articles and issue a formal public apology to former minister Showkutally Soodhun, following defamation proceedings heard before the Supreme Court of Mauritius. The case, referenced as Soodhun v. Sunday Times and Ors (Ref: 1/200/24), has now been settled after the newspaper acknowledged that its published claims were inaccurate.

The two articles at the centre of the dispute were published on 12 May 2024 and 15 September 2024, under the titles "Ses casseroles lui jouent un tour" (loosely translated as "His skeletons catch up with him") and "Baba Black Sheep". Both pieces made reference to an alleged controversial transfer of six million US dollars linked to a Memorandum of Understanding, or MoU, a formal agreement between parties that outlines intentions or cooperation on a specific matter.

The case took a decisive turn when a representative from the Ministry of Arts and Culture provided clarifications before the court. Those explanations contradicted the figures and framing used in the Sunday Times reports, and the newspaper ultimately conceded that its claims about the financial transfer did not reflect the position as clarified by the government.

In its published notice of apology, the Sunday Times management stated that it "sincerely regrets the publication of inaccurate information" and acknowledged the embarrassment, distress and reputational harm caused to Soodhun. Beyond the formal apology, the newspaper committed to removing the two articles from its platforms.

Showkutally Soodhun is a veteran Mauritian politician who served in several senior ministerial roles over the years, including as Minister of Housing and Lands and as a former Vice-Prime Minister. He has been a prominent figure in the Militant Socialist Movement, known by its French acronym MSM.

What this means: This case is a reminder that media outlets in Mauritius are subject to defamation law and can be compelled through the courts to retract published content and issue formal apologies. For public figures, the Supreme Court route offers a legal avenue to challenge reporting they consider false and damaging to their reputation. For readers, it also signals that claims published in the press, even when presented with specific figures such as a six-million-dollar transfer, may later be contested and found to be inaccurate when tested before a court.

The outcome does not prevent future reporting on Soodhun or related matters, but it sets a legal record that the specific claims in these two articles were not substantiated to the satisfaction of the court proceedings.

Source: ION News