AMBASSADOR FISCHER’S EMAIL TO DR FERRARI

SAY NO TO GRAND POLICE HOTEL AND MARINA

The marina and hotel development project at Grand Police has really angered the people of Seychelles and has awakened many from their long slumbers. The Grand Police project is nothing else but a pack of discordant lies and deception by the previous government of James Michel.

The land on which the hotel and marina is to be built belonged to a Seychellois, specifically the Deltel family. It was acquired by this same government during the one party state in the national interest. After the army moved out,  it seems Arabs turned out to be the owners of the land and government made available a group of SPDF personnel to secure the land so that no Seychellois could have access to it. Our own people, own government had been denying us the right to what is ours by birth; unimpeded access to the beach.

The government announced in 2007 that it had sold the land, which is just under a million square metres, to Loomington Investments for a hotel development project. This is about a quarter of La Digue. Nobody really knows exactly who Loomington are, as the company’s real owners are hidden behind an offshore company in British Virgin Islands.  Ever since, there have been a lot of speculations about what was really happening. The concerned citizens, wanting to preserve the area, searched for information as best they could. Government found it appropriate to play the game of cat and mouse.

T575 covers the area at the southernmost tip of Mahe where two of the most beautiful beaches in Seychelles are situated; Petite Police and Grand Police. It also has landmarks of extreme historical importance; the lighthouse, the plantation house and associated edifices. With possibly the largest wetland on the island with an immaculate ecosystem, the area is also a sanctuary for sea turtle nesting.  Say no to grand police hotel!

AP

SESELWA EN SEL DESTIN; Amesbury replies to Judiciary.

THE JUDICIARY IS ONE OF THE ARMS OF THE STATE/ GOVERNMENT. THE CABINET HAS 12 MINISTERS. THE LEGISLATURE HAS 33 MEMBERS AND THE JUDICIARY HAS 22 JUDICIAL OFFICERS, WHICH INCLUDES 6 MAGISTRATES 2 OF WHOM ARE FOREIGNERS. 10 JUDGES 3 OF WHOM ARE FOREIGNERS AND 2 NATURALISED SEYCHELLOIS. 1 MASTER, 1 REGISTRAR, 4 JUSTICES OF APPEAL 2 ARE FOREIGNERS AND 1 A NATURALISED SEYCHELLOIS AND 1 A SEYCHELLOIS.

 7 OUT OF 22 JUDICIAL OFFICERS ARE FOREIGNERS MAKING 32%. AND IF ONE INCLUDES THE NUMBER OF NATURALISED SEYCHELOIS JUDGES, THEN THAT FIGURE RISES TO 10 OUT OF 22 OR 45 %. THESE ARE FACTS NOT ATTACKS ON THE JUDICIARY.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF WORKING WITH GOVERNMENT DO NOT BECOME PART OF THE CABINET, NEITHER DOES THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY BECOME THE LEGISLATURE, THEREFORE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF WORKING WITH THE JUDICIARY DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE JUDICIARY, ONE OF THE ARM OF STATE/GOVERNMENT.

I ASK IS IT ACCEPTABLE THAT 32% OR 45% (DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT) OF THE JUDICIARY IS MADE UP OF FOREIGNERS?

JEAN FRANCOIS FERRARI HON MEMBER FOR MT FLEURI HAS GIVEN US A FEW RECORDS THAT SEYCHELLES HOLDS. I WILL GIVE YOU ONE MORE. SEYCHELLES IS THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF FOREIGNERS IN ITS JUDICIARY.

42% OF THE MNAS IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IS FROM PL. WOULD IT BE ACCEPTABLE IF EVERYONE OF THOSE SITTING ACROSS THE FLOOR FROM LDS WOULD BE A FOREIGNER? IF IT WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE IN THE LEGISLATURE WHY DO WE ACCEPT IT, IN THE JUDICIARY? OR EVEN IF 45%  of THE CABINET OF MINISTERS WOULD BE FOREIGNERS WOULD WE ACCEPT IT? SO WHY DO WE ACCEPT IT, IN THE JUDICIARY?

THIS IS ONE OF JAMES MICHEL’S LEGACIES. HE CHOSE TO GRANT SEYCHELLOIS NATIONALITY TO FOREIGNERS AND MAKE THEM JUDGES RATHER THAN APPOINT SEYCHELLOIS AS JUDGES, NOT THAT THERE WERE NO APPLICANTS FOR THE POSTS.

AT THE SAME TIME THAT JAMES MICHEL WAS GRANTING SEYCHELLOIS NATIONALITY TO A FOREIGNER SO HE COULD BECOME A SEYCHELLOIS JUDGE, ANOTHER QUALIFIED SEYCHELLOIS HAD AN APPLICATION PENDING BEFORE THE CAA, AS DID NICOLE TIRANT, AND AS DID SEVERAL OTHERS WHOSE NAMES I WILL NOT MENTION.

I AM TOLD THAT THE FOREIGNERS WHO ARE NATURALISED SEYCHELLOIS ARE CITIZENS ALL THE SAME, AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. MY ANSWER IS SIMPLE, IF A COW IS BORN IN A PIG STY DOES IT BECOME A PIG? THAT SAID, I TOTALLY AGREE THAT ONE SHOULD NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A FELLOW “CITIZEN.”BUT IS IT OK THEN, TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SEYCHELLOIS ATTORNEYS WHO QUALIFY TO BE APPOINTED JUDGES IN FAVOUR OF SOMETIMES LESS QUALIFIED FOREIGN ONES?

THE BODY MANDATED TO PROPOSE APPLICANTS FOR JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL APPOINTMENTS AUTHORITY, CAA, AND I ASK YOU, HAS THAT INSTITUTION LET THE PEOPLE OF SEYCHELLES DOWN? WHO IS TO BLAME IF TODAY 45% OF ONE OF THE ARM OF STATE ARE FOREIGNERS?

A FEW YEARS AGO NICOLE TIRANT BROUGHT A CASE AGAINST THE CAA AND THE PRESIDENT, AT THE TIME MR. RENE CHALLENGING THE RE-APPOINTMENT OF SEVERAL MAURITIAN JUDGES. IT WAS ONLY AFTER THAT CHALLENGE THAT SEYCHELLES GOT ITS FIRST POST MULTI-PARTY SEYCHELLOIS JUDGE AND NICOLE TIRANT HAS CONTINUED TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL POSITIONS EACH TIME A VACANCY HAS ARISEN AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE CAA AND THE PRESIDENT CONTINUE TO DISREGARD HER APPLICATIONS. AND AS RECENTLY AS 2013/14 MR. JAMES MICHEL CHOSE INSTEAD TO GRANT SEYCHELLOIS CITIZENSHIP TO A FOREIGNER SO HE COULD REMAIN AS A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE HIS CONTRACT AS A FOREIGN JUDGE HAD EXPIRED. SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE 4 OR 5 APPLICATIONS MADE BY NICOLE TIRANT AND OTHERS, THAT WERE  PENDING BEFORE THE CAA?

THE QUESTION IS, IF NICOLE CANNOT BE A JUDGE IN HER COUNTRY WHERE WILL SHE GO TO BE WHAT SHE WANTS TO BE? SRI LANKA, TANZANIA, MAURITIUS OR UGANDA? EVEN MORE RECENTLY THERE WAS ANOTHER FOREIGNER APPOINTED AS JUDGE, WAS HE MORE QUALIFIED TO FILL THAT POST THAN NICOLE TIRANT OR FOR THAT MATTER PHILLIPPE BOULLE WHO WAS THE SOLE CANDIDATE PROPOSED TO  JAMES MICHEL WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT BY MR. BONNELAME WHEN HE WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE CAA?

WOULD IT BE ACCEPTABLE IF THE EXECUTIVE OR THE LEGISLATURE WAS MADE UP OF 45% OR EVEN 1% OF FOREIGNERS? AND FOR HOW LONG WILL THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS CONTINUE?

IF THE CAA AND THE PRESIDENT CANNOT FIND LOCALLY QUALIFIED ATTORNEYS TO BE APPOINTED JUDGES HOW DID THEY FIND MAURITIANS, SRI LANKANS. UGANDANS AND TANZANIANS? THEY MUST BE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACES OR THEY ARE LOOKING FOR THE WRONG QUALIFICATIONS, OR  ARE THEY LOOKING FOR LOCAL ATTORNEYS WHO QUALIFY FOR SOME REASONS, OTHER THAN THOSE STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION?

THERE ARE SOON TO BE AT LEAST 2/3 VACANCIES IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT, 2 VACANCIES IN THE SUPREME COURT AND ANOTHER 2 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. IF PRESIDENT FAURE’S MIND SET IS WHAT WE SAW WHEN HE PUT 3 QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED SEYCHELLOIS AS THE MANAGEMENT TEAM OF THE NDEA AND HAD THE COURAGE TO MAKE A SEYCHELLOIS CHIEF OFFICER OF THAT ORGANISATION THEN THERE IS HOPE THAT SOON THE JUDICIARY WILL HAVE 6/7 NEW SEYCHELLOIS MEMBERS.

RECENTLY BERNARD GEORGES WAS APPOINTED AS A JUDGE OF THE COMESA COURT IN SUDAN AND HIS CLERK IS NONE OTHER THAN JUDHOO THE MAURITIAN WHO SERVED AS A JUDGE OF OUR SUPREME COURT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. OUR SEYCHELLEOIS QUALIFY TO BE APPOINTED JUDGES ELSEWHERE AND ONE OF THE FOREIGNERS THAT THE CAA AND OUR PRESIDENTS HAVE APPOINTED IN THE PAST QUALIFY TO BE HIS CLERK. HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?

THE CHALLENGE FOR CAA AND PRESIDENT FAURE IS TO FILL UP THE 6/7 JUDICIAL VACANCIES WITH SEYCHELLOIS, BEARING IN MIND THAT IF THE CAA DOES NOT PROPOSE THEN THE PRESIDENT CANNOT APPOINT. AND I SAY IF, THE CAA CANNOT FIND SIX OR SEVEN QUALIFIED SEYCHELLOIS TO PLACE BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, THEN WE REPLACE THE PRESENT CAA WITH PERSONS WHO ARE NOT BLIND. WHY DOES THE CAA SEE FOREIGNERS WHO QUALIFY TO BE APPOINTED JUDGES BUT IT FINDS NO SEYCHELLOIS?

THE NATIONAL THEME FOR THIS YEAR IS: “SESELWA EN SEL DESTIN”. HOW CAN SESELWA HAVE A SEL DESTIN WHEN 45% OF ONE OF THE ARM OF STATE COMPRISES OF FOREIGNERS? MY DESTINY AS A SEYCHELLOISE SHOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF A GOVERNMENT THAT IS 100% SEYCHELLOIS. PRESIDENT FAURE TRAVAY I LA.

I AM THE FIRST TO ADMIT THAT SEYCHELLES HAS BENEFITED ENORMOUSLY IN TERMS OF ITS JURISPRUDENCE FROM SEVERAL FOREIGN JUDGES AND THEIR HARD WORK. I THINK HERE NOT ONLY OF THE COMMONWEALTH JUDGES WHO HAVE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB IN HELPING TO REDUCE THE BACK LOG OF CASES THAT EXISTED NOT TOO LONG AGO.  MY PROBLEM IS WITH A CAA AND A PRESIDENT WHO REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE QUALIFICATIONS AND THE HARD WORK OF LOCAL ATTORNEYS WHO ASPIRE TO BE JUDGES IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

THE CONTENT OF THIS DOCUMENT IS MORE OR LESS WHAT I SAID DURING THE RALLY AT ROCHE CAIMAN. MOST OF IT IS FACTUAL AND THE REST MY PERSONAL OPINION. AS A CITIZEN OF SEYCHELLES MY DUTY FIRST AND FOREMOST IS TO MY COUNTRY. WHERE I SEE THAT THINGS ARE WRONG I HAVE A DUTY TO MY COUNTRY TO SAY IT, SO THAT CORRECTIONS CAN BE MADE.

I am putting the above on Seychelles Daily so that the readers can judge for themselves whether what I said in my speech was cause for the Judiciary to make the press statement it made.

Alexia G. Amesbury

PRESS STATEMENT

From: The Judiciary

To: All media

 On behalf of all judges and magistrates, the Judiciary wishes to respond to the public, verbal attacks on the Judiciary as an institution and on its non-Seychellois judicial officers specifically. These attacks include statements made at recent public political rallies and circulated on social media. The statement that the Judiciary is “in the hands of foreigners”, which has xenophobic undertones, is untrue. Less than 10% of the total judicial officers in Seychelles are non-Seychellois. The comments made in this regard constitute an attack on the few individuals who suspend their lives in other countries to assist the Seychelles Judiciary when we are unable to fill judicial positions based on applications received. Judicial officers cannot respond individually to attacks of this kind and nor should they have to. The Judiciary as a whole supports them in the important work they do for this country.

We wish to remind lawyer-politicians of their legal responsibilities under the Legal Practitioners’ Act, specifically of their overriding duty as ‘Officers of the Court’ under the Legal Practitioners (Professional Conduct) Rules, 2013 and their commitment to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice. Breach of these rules is a failure of professional ethics.

The Judiciary is committed to transparency as an institution and welcomes the media to engage with it on the truth underlying any allegations that are made regarding specific cases.

We also stand by our commitment to fulfilling our mandate under the Constitution and are confident in the skills and independence of our judicial officers. We request that public officials and officers of the Court refrain from attempts to intimidate the Judiciary. We have a job to do and must continue to perform our functions independently and without fear of recrimination.