Between Dignity and Freedom of Expression: Former Senator Moïse Jean-Charles Files Defamation Complaint

Former senator and leader of the Pitit Dessalin party, Moïse Jean-Charles, appeared this Tuesday, November 11, 2025, at the investigating judge's office accompanied by political activist Betty Lamy to file a formal complaint against lawyer Caleb Jean Baptiste. According to their statements, the latter allegedly made serious public accusations, implicating them in a supposed human organ trafficking network and in occult activities described as “biznis zangi” (eel business). The two plaintiffs denounce these defamatory remarks, which they consider an attack on their dignity and public reputation, and intend to seek redress before the competent courts. From a legal standpoint, the complaint by Moïse Jean-Charles and Betty Lamy falls within the provisions of the Haitian Penal Code, particularly articles 313 and 320 concerning defamation and public insult. Thus, if the remarks by Lawyer Caleb Jean Baptiste were disseminated on a media platform, they fully fall into this category. The plaintiffs have several avenues of recourse:

1. A complaint with civil party constitution (articles 61 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure), allowing for direct public prosecution before an investigating judge, which appears to be the chosen path here.
2. A simple complaint to the public prosecutor's office to initiate action by the government commissioner.

A civil action for damages to compensate for the moral and professional harm suffered. In both cases, the plaintiffs' lawyers will have to prove:

1. that the incriminating statements were indeed made publicly;
2. that they harmed their honor or reputation;
3. and that their author acted in bad faith.

Under Haitian law, bad faith is presumed when the alleged facts are manifestly false and the author has no evidence to support them. Reputation is a fundamental right protected by the Haitian Constitution of 1987, particularly in its article 19, which guarantees every citizen the right to respect for their dignity and the protection of their honor. Similarly, article 28-1 guarantees freedom of expression, but clearly adds: “The abuse of this freedom may be repressed by law.” This principle establishes a balance: freedom of speech, even political, cannot become a weapon of moral destruction. Thus, publicly accusing someone of a crime as serious as organ trafficking without proof or judicial investigation constitutes a major infringement of the principle of presumption of innocence (article 26 of the Constitution) and individual reputation. The matter is not trivial. Moïse Jean-Charles, an emblematic figure of the Haitian nationalist and sovereignist movement, is often the target of verbal attacks in the political arena. But the dimension of this accusation – organ trafficking and “biznis zangi” (eel business) – goes beyond the usual polemic to touch upon the criminal domain, a particularly sensitive register in the Haitian imagination. In this context, this complaint aims not only to clear the personal honor of the plaintiffs but also to recall the limits of political discourse and freedom of expression in the public sphere. Legal experts emphasize that if this complaint leads to a conviction, it could set an important precedent for political defamation in Haiti. This case raises an essential question: how to reconcile freedom of opinion with the protection of human dignity in an increasingly polarized public space? In the absence of a specific law on digital media and disinformation, the courts will have to rely on the general provisions of the Penal Code. If the investigating judge deems the complaint admissible, they may summon Lawyer Caleb Jean Baptiste for a hearing and potentially order investigative measures, including the verification of audio or video recordings that disseminated the incriminating statements. The action taken by Moïse Jean-Charles and Betty Lamy is part of an effort to establish the legal responsibility of those who, under the guise of freedom of expression, spread baseless accusations. It invites a broader reflection on the moral and legal responsibility of political and media actors in Haiti. As constitutional lawyer Samuel Madistin reminds us, “Freedom of expression does not grant the right to defame others. In a state governed by the rule of law, it is exercised within the limits of respect for human dignity.” This case, beyond the political turmoil, could well serve as a test of legal maturity for Haitian justice at a time when social media is redrawing the boundaries of public discourse.