The Mauritian lawyer has been granted permission by the
Attorney General’s office to take part in the hearings for the inquest into the
death of Harmon Chellen. The hearings will take place in March. In this
interview, Mr Rama Valayden says he is convinced that there have been
inconsistencies in the approach of police and Constance Ephelia hotel.
You came over for the inquest into the death of Harmon
Chellen set up by the Attorney General with the intention of asking for
permission to take part in the proceedings. Are you happy with your working
visit?
In the circumstances of this particular case, I must say
that I am satisfied with the way things went. Firstly, I think the inquest
before Magistrate Adeline went rather well because I was told before coming
over that there would be a lot of problems but the magistrate did seem keen to
iron out all the obstacles and he agreed to the request to postpone the hearing
until March to give us enough time to carry out our investigation. Secondly,
the Attorney General (AG) agreed to meet with us – a meeting that took place
with the help of local lawyer Joel Camille, who is working with us. The meeting
went very well. I must add that the AG also met with members of the family. He
spoke of the intricacies of the case in front of the members of the family,
which I think is a good thing.
So yes, I am very
impressed by the AG’s commitment to transparency which can only bode well.
Thirdly, I am happy with the progress of my own inquiry. No criminal lawyer
worth his salt will conduct a case without at least carrying out his own
enquiry. In a very short span of time, we have been able to meet several people
and to obtain information that wasn’t available before. I have been able to
obtain photos, testimonies, visit certain places and meet workers of the hotel
and have thus been able to fill in the gaps in the timeframe during which Mr
Chellen was unaccounted for.
So you are saying that now you have a clear picture of what
happened?
Yes and now that I have a clear picture, I am convinced that
there have been many irregularities in this case.
On whose part?
I am economical with the truth when I say irregularities. I
think it was more than that. But to answer your question, I think the
irregularities came from the hotel and the police. I am basing this statement
on the information I have received and obviously, all this information needs to
be checked and crosschecked. It is important that the people who have imparted
this information feel confident enough to come to court to depone. If not, all
that information will go to waste. But at the very least, for the members of
the family to know now what really went on that fatal Monday is a big
consolation and it gives them comfort and helps them in their period of
mourning.
Can you give us an idea of the chain of events that led to
the death of Mr Chellen?
It’s not hard to retrace the steps of Mr Chellen. The police
will have to produce the CCTV footage of the hotel before the court. This is
important because we must know how many police officers went to the hotel to
take Mr Chellen. Not just that, it is also important to know the type of
vehicle they used. What is also of utmost important is to find out how Mr
Chellen was dressed when he left the hotel. This is important because in these
sorts of cases, it is important to look at the details. I can tell you that the
clothes Harmon Chellen was wearing on the Monday morning when he left the hotel
to go to the police station were later found in his suitcase!
Are you sure?
I am. And that suitcase was at the hotel. The family has
already recuperated it. So how does one explain that he had those clothes on
when he went to the station and those clothes were later found in the suitcase
that was left at the hotel?
So what are you saying – that he went back to the hotel?
No. What I am saying is that this is the first information
that gives you an indication that there is something wrong – how come the suit
was back in the suitcase when Mr Chellen supposedly never went back to the
hotel? Does this mean that Harmon Chellen did in fact go back to the hotel? The
CCTV footage of the hotel will enlighten us on this. Also if he returned to the
hotel, people must have seen him. This gives another dimension to the case. On
the other hand, if he did not return to the hotel, how did the clothes end up
there? The only people who could have put it there are the police.
With the help of people at the hotel, presumably?
Maybe the police went to the hotel after they found Mr
Chellen’s body and they went to pick the suitcase up as part of the enquiry.
But then they must explain what they did with the suit. I must remind you that
Mr CHellen was found with his shirt, shoes and belt missing. And we all know
that shoes and belt are always removed from a prisoner when he is under arrest.
The belt is removed so that the person doesn’t use it to commit suicide and the
shoes to prevent the person from running away. The shirt was probably taken
from him because he was feeling hot in the cell. Let’s not forget there are
three cells in the Port Glaud police station.
So he was actually in a cell? The police have never
confirmed this.
I am not sure but it does stand to reason that one would not
be without one’s shirt, belt and shoes while waiting at the reception.
But this is what the
police have said so far – that he was waiting at the reception because they
were waiting for another officer to interrogate him! Yes it is indeed what they
have said officially so far. We must verify this information. The police must
be able to substantiate what they say. We all know that the Port Glaud police
station is a very small station, three metres by four. The reception and the
place where the officer stands measures only one metre. One can easily see what
people are doing. Was the station busy on that day? Were they attending to
other requests? All these things will have to come out.
Have you managed to speak to police officers so far?
I have not yet been communicated the version of the police.
But I’ll get it eventually as this information will have to come to court. The
Magistrate was adamant when he said to the representatives of the AG office
that they must make available all the documentary evidence. This includes the
occurrence book.
If you have been able in just two days to get that much
information, it follows that the information would have been available to
anyone who’d asked the right questions?
Maybe it’s easy to say this now after I have pondered on the
case for a long period of time. Spending a lot of time thinking about a case
does help you with regards to the questions you have to ask. Or maybe I’m just
lucky! And maybe the people who spoke to me were scared to speak to other
people. You know, when you are conducting an enquiry, people must feel free to
talk to you, they must also be confident that whatever they say to you won’t be
repeated elsewhere or held against them. Confidentiality must be respected.
And this reluctance to talk could actually undermine the
inquest. Let’s say you keep on digging and you find more information to support
your case but you have no one to corroborate this in court. What happens?
There are many layers in this case and the first one will be
quasi impossible to prove: the innocence or guilt of Mr Chellen with regards to
the allegations of harassment. He is not here today and we only have the lady’s
word.
This won’t be part of the inquest though?
No. Unfortunately, they called the lady perhaps to set the
basis as to why the police came to get Mr Chellen in the first place. Again the
CCTV footage of the hotel should help clear things up. The testimonies of the
people at the hotel who spoke to Mr Chellen about the complaint and his
reaction to the accusation will also help. When the police called at the hotel,
what did they do? Did they arrest Mr Chellen? Did they force him to come with
them? Was Mr Chellen in the company of the lady as well as her husband when he
left the hotel? Were they in the same van? Did the police take the statements
straight away? Did Mr Chellen resist arrest? Did he ask for a lawyer? Having
known Mr Chellen for a long time and having studied with him in London, I know
that faced with such a situation, he would have wanted to speak to a lawyer. I
am sure of that. There was no attempt to get in touch with a lawyer and yet Mr
Chellen was a man who knew his rights.
So I think we’ll find
at the very least that there has definitely been negligence in this case. But I
also think there’s a chance that there was more than just negligence and so
many questions will need to be asked and I know they will not be in favour of
the police because of the time schedule.
The discrepancies in the timeline are what had initially
raised doubts about the version of the police…
Yes and sadly for some police officers, everything will come
out. I say sadly because the famous question of Watergate will have to be
asked: what did you do when you knew?
The timeline doesn’t add up, like we said. Have you been
able to find out more about this?
Rumour has it that at one time the police phoned the AG for
a stop order. The police are now in a quandary because they keep saying there
was no arrest. If there was no arrest, why would there have been an objection
to departure? What we know is that everything that the police entered into the
book was done after 2.15pm. And in the book, there isn’t anything about Mr
Chellen’s arrest.
The first statement
that came from the police said he had escaped at about 1.30 and that his body
was found at 2.50pm. Does that make sense to you?
No. I quizzed the
person who saw the body in the sea and he said the body was found at 2.50pm.
When the person found the body, he phoned the police and then he went to the
shore to get help and then when he went back the body had moved so he spent
another 20 minutes looking for it. Fishermen confirm this. They also confirm
that the police refused to help them to pick the body. I don’t know if this is
the protocol but this is what happened.
At this point, after having spoken to the AG and seen things
for yourself, are you confident that the inquest will give an indication of
what happened?
I am sure the inquest will help us to find the truth and we’ll
definitely see that some things have gone amiss.
The Mauritian government sent an officer, Mr Gerard, on a
watching brief. How did that work out?
I have been given to understand that he was not even been
able to see any official documents, let alone evidence.
So it was a wasted trip?
Indeed and I am going to write a report to inform government
of this. Mr Gerard wasn’t even allowed to visit the Port Glaud station. Yet I
was and contrarily to him, I wasn’t on official business. He wasn’t able to
meet the police officers who were in charge of the enquiry. He only obtained an
appointment an hour and a half before he was supposed to leave the country.
This perception is that Mr Gerard was not given all the facilities to give a
helping hand, despite the fact that his presence follows an agreement between
the governments of the two countries.
But isn’t Mauritius undermining Seychelles when they insist
on sending a police officer? The death occurred in Seychelles, shouldn’t it be
down to the Seychelles police to do their job?
Mr Gerard was here because there was a protocol between
Mauritius and Seychelles. He was here officially so there is no question of
undermining. In cases like this, one must look beyond borders. It’s about
justice and human beings. Mauritius and Seychelles can give the example of
cooperation to find the truth. It shouldn’t be a matter of ego.
Had the situation been reversed, would Mauritius have
allowed Seychelles access? You are a former AG – would you have helped?
I would have given them all the facilities because the truth
is what matters. In the case of the murder of the tourist Michaela Harte,
Mauritius gave a lot of latitude to the family who were the guests of
government. They were treated as VIPs, they had police officers to escort them.
In court, they were given special places, they were received by police
officers, and their barrister was allowed to ask questions during the trial at
the Assizes. Lawyers like myself who were defending accused parties never had
any objections.
Were the Irish police involved?
Yes, they received
all information and facilities. It all depends on the goodwill of the
government.
Source:Today
