In May 2017, a symposium was held at ICCS where the idea of
setting up a Truth and National Reconciliation Commission was discussed. When Honourable Basil Hoareau suggested that
perpetrators of certain crimes which had been committed against the people of
Seychelles be granted immunity, this idea was booed by the whole audience.
In my view, The Truth, Reconciliation and National
Unity Commission Bill is designed to protect the perpetrators of crimes
committed against the people of Seychelles, such as treason, murder, illegal
imprisonment, and disappearances to name a few, and has nothing to do with
justice and closure for the victims. No input was ever sought or received, from
the victims. This Bill can be described as a piece of legislation set up to
absolve the present regime from all crimes committed against its citizens, as
long as the perpetrators “sincerely apologise to the victims” and file “a
petition for amnesty”, which “shall be granted.” For example, those who
abducted Hassan Ali and did whatever was done to him and disposed of his
remains, will come before the Commission and when asked about this event, will
invoke section 13 ( c) of “The Bill” against self-incrimination” and refuse to
answer. How will the truth surrounding the coup d’état and the atrocities ever
come to light, and how will the families ever get ‘closure’ if that is one of
the aims of the Bill? Since the coup d’état was a crime against the people of
Seychelles, many are suggesting this Bill go to referendum.
How much credibility would the Apartheid Regime of Pik Botha
and his predecessors have had, had it set up a Truth and Reconciliation
Commission to investigate the atrocities of the apartheid regime he led?
History has shown that even an ANC enacted Truth and Reconciliation Commission
(TRC) in South Africa after the end of apartheid failed many of the victims. A
1998 study by South Africa's Centre for the Study of Violence and
Reconciliation and the Khulumani Support Group, which surveyed several hundred
victims of human rights abuse during the Apartheid era, found that most felt
that the TRC had failed to achieve reconciliation between the black and white
communities. Most believed that justice was a prerequisite for reconciliation
rather than an alternative to it, and that the TRC had been weighted in favour
of the perpetrators of the human rights abuses.
In Seychelles, the situation is much worse because the Bill
is designed to absolve the perpetrators and to rehabilitate them into society
but not to do, or mete out justice to the victims. Unlike South Africa, the
Commission will be established by the same government that committed the
violations. The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation was later established
in 2000 as the successor organization of the TRC in South Africa.
Justice is defined as “fairness in the way people are dealt
with”, therefore by definition this Bill, if enacted by the present regime,
will deny the victims of any fairness. There can be no national unity or
national reconciliation without justice for the victims. The Bill is only “to
promote national unity and reconciliation”. Section 6(4) does not even offer
the victims the choice of privacy; showing a total lack of foresight and
compassion on the part of the promoters of this piece of legislation. The
Constitution guarantees everyone a fair trial/hearing by an “independent and
impartial court established by law”. The Commission will be established by law,
but will it be independent and impartial??
There are so many disturbing aspects to this “Perpetrators
Charter”. In section 2(2) a perpetrator is defined as “a person who the
Commission has found to be a perpetrator including the person who has given the
order.” So it is the Commission established, by the President of the regime,
which determines whether or not a person is “a perpetrator” or even a “victim”,
defined under section 2(7) as a “person having suffered any significant harm or
detriment as a result of any violations.”
Section 2 (8) lays the boot in “violation means any human rights abuses
committed during, or in relation to the coup D’etat of 5th June 1977.” So even
if you have killed, the Commission can decide that you are not a perpetrator,
or a victim of a violation of your human rights, not only because in 1977
Seychelles did not have a Constitution or a Charter of Fundamental Rights but
also because the Commission established by the present regime can make a
finding that the human rights violation was not committed “during or in
relation to the coup d’etat on 5th June 1977.”
It gets worse, section 2(3) defines “Rehabilitation” as
“psychological or mental support for both perpetrators and victims in need of
such support with a view to their achieving complete closure including
restoring their credibility in society.” Begging the question, WHOSE
CREDIBILITY? THE VICTIMS OR THE PERPETRATORS? Any perpetrator can file a
petition for amnesty within a time limit set by the Commission. In section
3(2)(e) it is the Commission who will determine the granting of amnesty,
however section 12(4) is clear that if the perpetrator offers an apology to the
victims they “shall be granted amnesty” irrespective. A person who has been granted amnesty shall
not be criminally or civilly liable so therefore evidence given before the
commission shall not be admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings.
Section 13(c) renders the commission totally futile as any
person can refuse to answer questions from the Commissioners by claiming that
to do so, would incriminating them.
The Bill gives the Commission the same powers as the Supreme
Court. Therefore, can the Supreme Court grant amnesty for serious human rights
violations? What does the Seychellois Charter of Fundamental Human Rights and
Freedoms say about treason? And your right to life and no one shall be deprived
of life intentionally? The perpetrators must therefore be held accountable. The
perpetrators are the same ones that have robbed this nation dry and now this
Bill is setting them up to get away with murder; literally. Just like the
Anti-Corruption Commission created by the SPPF/PL regime to investigate
“corruption” and despite the several acts of corruption revealed by the FPAC
and the National Assembly only one case has reached the court and this, a case
against one of the investigators shortly before the first “corruption” case was
supposed to have been filed.!!! Effectively killing the case against a past
high ranking member of the government.
As a concerned citizen, I am imploring the President, who
has many times stated that he is a defender of the Constitution, if this Bill
is passed by the National Assembly not to assent to it but to invoke article
87(1) of the Constitution, which states:
“Where the President
is of the opinion that a Bill presented for assent infringes or may infringe
this Constitution, the President shall not assent to the Bill and, as soon as
is practicable within fourteen days of the presentation of the Bill; (a) advise
the Speaker accordingly; and (b) refer the Bill to the Constitutional Court for
a decision in this respect.”
The President will be making history as it will be the first
time any President has referred a bill to the Constitutional court for a
decision on its constitutionality thereby respecting his oath of allegiance to
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of Seychelles. The withholding of
Presidential assent will not only be historical because of the referral to the
Constitutional Court but more importantly it will be the first time that a bill
will be enacted into law after the active involvement of all three branches of
the State/ Government.
Alexander Pierre
