LEAKED; 2015 original Seychelles India agreement for military base on Assumption

The highly controversial military base agreement on Assumption between Seychelles and India; leaked by a true patriot. This is the original 2015 agreement. Note the original agreement was for 10 years only.

Is the ASSUMPTION INDIA AGREEMENT; NULL AND VOID?

Is this agreement yet another example of an economic crime against the people of Seychelles?

On the 20th of December 1994 The Government of Seychelles leased 11 islands to a private company, Island Development Company Limited (IDC) for 99 years for the yearly rent of SR1. Sometime later Astove, Assumption and St Pierre were added to the original agreement making a total of 14 islands in all. IDC was supposed to develop the islands. The kind of development was never clear and ordinary Seychellois was always in the dark. Because the ordinary Seychellois were in the dark to this day, I guess they were happy enough that once a year they got birds eggs from those islands, until about two or three years ago when we were told that helicopters were needed to transport the eggs and that was why none was available. Nevertheless, there was a plan why the 14 islands were leased to IDC. The plan was to transfer the assets of IDC to another Limited company in the British Virgin Islands at a later date but fortunately the plan failed. This never made any sense to anyone until one understands that this was “attempted theft”.

The original 1994 lease agreement

Seychellois lost the benefit of his 14 islands to some dollar millionaires. We are not even allowed to set foot there. Many fishermen have complained about being denied a place to “maske” during rough weather conditions because they are chased off by armed guards.

Despite the ordinary Seychellois not benefitting in any way whatsoever from the “development” taking place on these 14 islands, up until recently millions of rupees of our tax money was poured into IDC every year. Is this not an economic crime perpetrated against the people of Seychelles?

For the last 40 years the SPUP/SPPF/Parti Lepep regime has been committing crimes against its citizens, however this one cannot be forgiven by the people. So what is the crime this time? Is it one of committing fraud on an international level? The signed renegotiated agreement between the Seychelles Government and the Indian Government for a military base on Assumption has yet to reach the National Assembly for ratification; the military base is now disguised as a joint venture. Where was India when our EEZ was infested with pirates? The UNODC and EU came to our rescue. For any agreement to have legal validity, it needs valuable consideration. What is the consideration for this Agreement? India gets its military base on Seychelles soil to counteract China’s military base in Djibouti and Seychelles gets WHAT? The use of a military base to wage war against the tuna, turtles and dolphins in our waters when we are attacked by them?

The Leader of the opposition may have used a couple of loose words on a recent trip to India but LDS is a movement grander than any one person. LDS is not like Parti Lepep and they are not rigid and deaf on the People of Seychelles. In principle, LDS is against any foreign military base in Seychelles and like the campaign song, it is clear the deal upon reaching the assembly should be “Zet Anba”. Danny Faure, the Unelected President of Seychelles, stated his belief in transparency, but now his Administration is being exposed as a perpetrator of yet another economic crime against the citizens, because we do not see the benefit for the ordinary Seychellois. They keep losing out.  The revised agreement has never been made public and this lack of transparency has caused massive confusion in the population. Furthermore, LDS must also ensure that the original agreement by the Michel administration is made public.

The benefit to Seychelles of having a military base on its soil does not make any sense except of course to those who might have benefitted in some way or another from it. Just out of curiosity who drafted the Agreement?

IDC website

Once again and very recently, in an interview with the Editor in Chief of Today in Seychelles, Raj Meetarbhan, on 28th of March 2017, The CEO of IDC confirms the ownership of Assumption. Therefore, any agreement for Assumption and the Indian Government should have been between the Lessee, IDC and the Indian Government. It is very strange that the CEO of IDC has been very quiet. Is the agreement between the Seychelles Government and the Indian Government not worth the paper it is printed on? Is this agreement another economic crime against the people of Seychelles?  India get its military base  and we get the birds eggs!!! It is clear some public officials are more suited to the Magic Circus of Samoa. It is also clear that the Danny Faure Administration will not make it to 2020.

CEO of IDC confirms ownership in interview with Today in Seychelles

The people must insist on the immediate removal of the Danny Faure Administration as this could be the biggest embarrassment internationally for Seychelles of all time. Lastly, is IDC Ltd wholly owned by the Government of Seychelles? If it is, why was IDC incorporated in the first place? However, be that as it may technically and legally any agreement regarding Assumption must be signed by the CEO of that limited company, the Lessee. The CEO was nowhere to be seen. End of Story!

Seychelles Citizen Watch

SEYCHELLES IT’S TIME!

I came across an article on the internet that got me thinking about the general feeling of malaise and discontentment of the people in Seychelles.  In my view a small elite owns the bulk of the land and wealth of Seychelles while the majority suffocates under an oppressive system that condemns them to poverty and hardship. Only the people’s revolution through the ballot box can turn the tide to ensure everyone gets a share of the pie

Most 'ordinary Seychellois’ are on their own. Seychelles, the tourist paradise has wealth in its ocean and yet the citizens pay crushing taxes and do battle on a daily basis with a paralysing cost of living.

Is this normal? Is this freedom? How is this independence? Why do the people still live like this, 41 years after the formal end of British colonialism? Where is the independence dividend? Who does this kind of democracy work for?

In Seychelles 40% or 30,000 of the population, have been without enough food, and shelter and other basic necessities of life according to official statistics. This 40% of the people live in poverty, and 40 years after independence things have not improved much. In some areas this figure has risen to 54%. How long will this go on? For how long will the people live like this?

Ex-presidents are entitled to an official car, an armed driver, an armed bodyguard and two police guards at home - on top of a hefty salary and allowances. What about those “ghost” accounts and contracts  (scams) in the name of national security? While citizens are told by the rulers that there are inadequate funds, what about government wastage and shady procurements? Co-habitation might be working for the politicians but its not delivering for the people of Seychelles.

How many super wealthy Seychellois are there? This tiny clique of super wealthy individuals control nearly two-thirds of Seychelles $ billion economy owning about a fifth of the country’s gross domestic product. The wealth distribution in Seychelles shows that a common thread running through almost all the dollar millionaires is their political connections as well as their ownership of large tracts of land. The wealthy political dynasties and billionaire landowners reflect Seychelles top political leadership.

Essentially, the last 40 years of independence have been about massive concentration of the nation’s wealth in the hands of a few people while the masses languish in poverty. Since independence, public office whether elective or appointive has remained the most important stepping stone to fabulous wealth through corruption, land grabbing and all manner of economic crimes against the people of Seychelles. The time has come to dismantle this system. The masses feel completely alienated by the current dysfunctional system and many remain very poor and are mostly landless. Who took their land and why?

National unity remains elusive. The country is deeply divided along political lines. Seychelles is yet to have a president whose mandate begins in the ballot box and this, despite having had four. The presidents from the Ruling Party deepen the political divide by rewarding their people with public resources and positions. They buy political loyalty by rewarding party elites and punishing entire groups by excluding them from meaningful development. As a result Seychellois generally think of themselves first as “ek nou e pa ek nou” members of their political groups and not citizens of a nation.

Can the people do something about the sad situation they find themselves in? Yes, firstly by the people asking for the return of their land. The people are fed up with the pampered political class. They want fundamental change, not another package of negotiated reforms. No amount of reforms can cure the ravages of years of elite politics. Other than revolutionary change, through the ballot box, nothing is going to improve the lives of the majority of Seychellois. The super-rich individuals will certainly grow richer, while the conditions of life of other Seychellois will worsen. The fabulous wealth of the dollar millionaires is not going to trickle down to the masses. Never!

The people themselves must dismantle this system. And they can. Most people never thought British colonialism would end. It did. Not many people imagined apartheid could be defeated by the people of South Africa. It was. Few people thought the deeply entrenched Moi kleptocracy would go. It did. It took the single selfless protest action of a young Tunisian street vendor, Tarek al-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi, (not some powerful politician or grouping!) to bring down the 22-year-old dictatorship of Ben Ali in 2011.

A new radical leadership must emerge. The ultimate political authority belongs to the people and they must use it to bring about the change the country so badly needs. They are not as helpless as some might think. They have the power to overthrow this predatory system and put in place a new one that genuinely serves their interests. We need a new consciousness. People ought to understand that their conditions of poverty, disease, insecurity, unemployment, landlessness, are not the will of God- or a result of lack of faith. Rather, the people are victims of an unjust order. This order must be destroyed, through the ballot box. This is the noblest cause that the ‘ordinary citizens’ of Seychelles must now undertake: the struggle for their own liberation from the clutches of elite politics.

Alexia G. Amesbury

BASTIENNES` WALL NEARLY KILLS FAMILY

Recently a local newspaper reported that a “retaining wall crumbles on home” and asked the question “Who`s responsible?” No names were mentioned as some editors’ refused to touch it; accountability was out of the window. Other Editors that had the information; just cowered in fear. Everybody wanted to keep it hush hush. Parts of the original article are published below:

“A retaining wall in La Retraite, Anse Etoile has crumbled on a neighbouring house situated just below the wall and it is still unclear whether the incident is a result of the rain, or whether the construction was faulty. Residents in the area expressed their concern about safety of construction on such steep hills.

Parts of the neighbouring home below the retaining wall was destroyed, crushed completely under the weight of the rocks and boulders from the construction.

The house has since been covered in plastic sheets, while construction workers have been seen deployed on the scene to start removing all the debris and gravel from the area so that the wall can be rebuilt.

Certain residents of the area have expressed their concern to this newspaper about the safety of certain constructions in the area, and of the safety of homes located in close proximity with these large walls and homes being built. The terrain is steep, and many of these houses are located on the mountainside.”

Seychelles Citizenwatch can reveal the house and land belongs to no other than the "Cartel busting" Minister for Habitat, Infrastructure and Land Transport which includes the planning department; Charles Bastienne. 

Apparently, the neighbours below were not at home, otherwise it could have been a fatal disaster. H6305 is the plot where the house is built. H12433 also belongs to Bastienne and purchased from the Government, totally violating Government land allocation policy “ONE PIECE OF LAND PER PERSON OR IF YOU HAVE (PRIVATE) LAND ALREADY YOU CANNOT GET GOVERNMENT LAND.”

Source: Seychelles Citizenwatch

WHO MURDERED GERARD HOARAU?

Gérard Hoarau (7 December 1950 – 29 November 1985) was an exiled opposition leader from the Seychelles and was head of the Mouvement Pour La Resistance (MPR) that sought the peaceful overthrow of the France-Albert René regime which had come to power on 5 June 1977 in a bloody coup d'état. The opposition was based in London. He was assassinated on 29 November 1985 by an unidentified gunman, on the doorstep of his London home.

The British police have never solved his murder, but the France-Albert René government were highly implicated. As well as the hired hit-man, British police also believed that there was another individual—believed to be a Seychellois—who knew Hoarau and was able to identify him to the foreign assassin. Neither Hoarau’s assassin nor his accomplice has been caught. British police did arrest a number of individuals who confessed to working for an Irish private detective, Ian Withers, and were responsible for tapping Hoarau’s telephone line.

Mr. René admitted that Withers was employed by his government. James Mancham stated that "we know for a fact that the house of many exile groups were broken into and bugged by agents of the René government and now if they are prepared to pay agents to bug our houses so they should able to do a lot more". He went on to say that " he was very disturbed, once madness starts you don`t know where it stops". The murder was headline news in the UK and Mike Cobb, a senior Metropolitan police press officer at Scotland Yard stated "the fact that it was being dealt with by the anti-terrorist branch at Scotland Yard obviously suggests that there is some political background to the shooting".

Charles Meynell, editor of African Confidential, explained that " judging by recent history in the Seychelles where a lot of people have disappeared, I think it's highly likely that the René government is behind this. René has himself said that the leader of the opposition over here, Mr Hoarau was public enemy number one so I think it would be very hard to come to any other conclusion at this stage". He further indicated that "much more likely is a straight forward political assassination whereby somebody is given a large amount of money and told to get on with it".

Paul Chow, the Secretary General Of the Seychelles National Movement, boldly stated that "there is no doubt it is Mr René, the Marxist President of Seychelles. Only last month his party congress passed a resolution to the effect that he should take action against enemies of the revolution in Seychelles and abroad".

Grover Norquist, a powerful and very influential Republican lobbyist, was hired by communist France-Albert René to lobby before Congress. Asked how he could have a communist ruler who had been accused of human rights abuses as a client, Norquist stated that René was "a guy who preferred to not have elections for a number of years," and said of René’s human rights record, "there were one or two people who people were suspected done in."  It was also stated that whilst René denied involvement in the assassination, he admitted to bugging Hoarau’s telephone and to listening in on Hoarau’s last phone call.

British police had discovered that Hoarau’s telephone line was systematically bugged by these agents by placing a device in a junction box. The recordings were made from a safe house bought specially for that purpose from funds transferred from a secret account in Jersey.  During his last phone call Hoarau changed the time of a doctor’s appointment.  This information was necessary for the assassin to have in order to lay in wait for him on the fateful day.  British police later identified the murder weapon as a Sterling machine gun, the same type of gun used by the Seychelles police.

Hoarau was a very bright and highly educated young Seychellois with a degree in philosophy and theology from a prestigious Italian university. Consequently, he was fluent in Latin and Italian, as well as in English and French.

After independence he worked as special assistant to President James Mancham at State House, as head of the nascent foreign ministry. He was also a great footballer and gained many caps for the Seychelles National Team.  Hoarau opposed the creation of the one-party state and the decision by Rene to close down all football clubs in Seychelles and plan the incarceration of all youngsters reaching the age of sixteen into political education camps for two years, which Rene called the National Youth Service (NYS).

Hoarau was targeted by the new regime. The targeting became more evident after the school children demonstration in October 1979 against the National Youth Service.

On 15 November 1979, Hoarau and 100 others were rounded up by the police and held incommunicado without charge or trial at the Union Vale Prison guarded by young Seychellois soldiers led by Tanzanian troops. When he was released nine months later, he was placed under house arrest until he was escorted by security police out of the country.

Hoarau then moved to South Africa and in 1982 the South African government cancelled his resident permit after an agreement by them and René on the release of South African mercenaries captured in Seychelles. One of René's conditions being that Hoarau would be expelled from South Africa.

Gérard Hoarau is buried in London, his body specially preserved in a zinc casket so one day it can be repatriated to his homeland; Seychelles.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9rard_Hoarau

PARTI LEPEP SCAM

Hon Ferrari had just brought up the issue of the kiosks being built at ex-Flamboyant. Although no planning permission has officially been granted completion of the newly named Village de Flamboyant is almost complete; the soft opening was on the 10^th of August as reported by local newspapers. This is not the scam.

The scam is that the land belongs to Parti Lepep and the rent for the kiosks range from SCR3,500 to SCR10,000 depending on the size. That is the scam.

Here`s an excerpt from the article from Today newspaper on the 3^rd of August.

“The project manager overseeing the work being done is Darryl Lefournour. He explained to TODAY that their plan to develop the place is big. “These kiosks will be occupied by different small businesses. For instance, we will have a ‘Braid Bar’, a florist, places for food like chicken and chips and pizza. There will also be a place where fresh fruits and vegetables will be sold. A few kiosks will be selling clothes, shoes and bags, toys, potted plants, spare parts for motorcycles and scooters. In addition to that, a retail outlet for electronics will also be stationed here,” he revealed.

He said that they will be initiating a lot of activities to attract people in the area. “For instance, during the Creole Festival we have plans to turn this place into a Creole Village where we can have Creole activities throughout the festival. We will also be targeting other national events,” he said. Mr. Lefournour added, “other than that, throughout the year there are different days which are celebrated across the country (example Women’s Day, Children’s Day, HIV/AIDS Day, Environment Day, etc.) and we are planning to bring these in as well. Another project ongoing in the same area is the renovation of the ground floor of the Ex-Flamboyant Discotheque. This space, Mr. Lefournour said, will be an event hall which members of the public can rent for different functions.”

JOHAN LOZE DISLODGES HOMELESS COUPLE

Mr Patrick and his wife returned to Seychelles after having lived overseas for many years. They bought a parcel of land at Le Niole and started a small tourism self-catering business of only two rooms. A parcel of land adjacent to their own belongs to government; on it is a dilapidated, uninhabited house. Two years ago, Mr Patrick requested to government that the plot be leased to him for extending his business. Government agreed but not before going through traumas as Patrick’s family were not very fond of the political party in power. However, after Patrick’s wife served as witness in the famous ‘however’ case challenging the election results, government revoked its intention to lease the land in question to Mr Patrick. Patrick’s wife was certainly not a witness of the government in power. When the revocation letter was received by the family, the motivation was abundantly clear; political victimisation.

As the uninhabited house posed a health risk to the adjacent tourism establishment because of rodents and vermin, Mr Patrick found it necessary to maintain a minimal level of cleanliness on the adjacent property; work which he had to do on his own. However, the old house attracted drug users and other part time squatters; it had been overgrown. Because of the declining security situation in the country, the family was forever concerned about the security of their guests and with the death of Mr Simon Esparon, Mr Patrick became more worried.

Coincidentally the family came across another couple who had been seeking decent short term accommodation. Mr Patrick found an opportunity to attend to the security problem by having someone live in the abandoned house. With a lot of verve and determination, the area was cleaned and made habitable. Before the cleaning started, Mr Patrick sought an appointment to meet with the Principal Secretary for Habitat to seek his permission in allowing the house to be temporarily occupied for the reasons stated but he was not successful. Determined, he informed the secretary to the PS that he was going to State House which he did. He was about to meet Mrs Arnephie when his phone rang and he was informed he had been granted an audience with Mr Denis Barbe, the PS Habitat.

He informed PS Habitat of the situation and gave his commitment that the couple would leave when government needed to make use of the land. The couple had brought into the house few furniture by the time Johan Loze showed up and informed everyone who wanted to hear that the house had been allocated to him and squatters had no rights in Seychelles. Mr Loze was adamant that the house was his and he had the right to evict the squatters.

Johan"Zimo" Loze

The house was subsequently barricaded and nailed shut to ensure that no one could enter; the couple could therefore not take out their furniture.

Interestingly, they received a letter from the planning authority threatening action for unauthorized renovation works.

After negotiations were undertaken, PMC officers supervised the removal of furniture from the house which was barricaded shut again.

It is such a tragedy that a ministry which is responsible for ensuring that every Seychellois has a roof over their heads should be involved in a useless eviction exercise. Furthermore; who is Johan Loze and what role does he play in all of that?? The incident highlights that Parti Lepep is more vicious than ever; their networks are still very active. Parti Lepep diehards will find President Danny Faure’s theme for 2018 of respect, compassion and love very hard to digest.

Source: Seychelles Weekly

THE CLAMMY CLAWS OF CORRUPTION; LETTER TO THE EDITOR

I was reading “It’s Our Turn to Eat” the story of a Kenyan Whistle Blower, John Githongo, who had been appointed Kenya’s anti-corruption czar signaling the new government’s (Mwai Kibaki’s) determination to put an end to sleaze. The author Michela Wrong explores the corruption endemic in African society and how one brave man made a lonely decision with huge ramifications. It is how an entire country can be munched in the clammy claws of corruption. She focuses on corruption in Kenya, and talks incisively about two  such cases which rocked Kenya during both the Moi and Kibaki eras. The Goldenberg and the Anglo Leasing Scams.

I quote a particular section in the book because of the near exact replication of what has happened in Seychelles.

“While Goldenberg, involved financial strategems so complex even economists had difficulty grasping them all, Anglo Leasing was so simple a child could master the technique. It was a classic procurement scam, needing only two parties, although for it to work one of the those parties had to be at the top of government, powerful enough to silence doubting minions and ignore institutional checks and balance (we have heard the governor of the Central Bank’s statement to the National Assembly and we also know who the top government person(s) were/was). Another vital component was the military and security nature of the contracts. In every other sector, contracts had to be put to open tender, forcing even the greediest supplier to stay within the realms of the reasonable.  Advertisements were placed in newspaper and   trade journals competitive bids collected, technical competence established, and the companies who came forward knew they might be subjected to due diligence before the relevant ministry made its decision. Any irregularities risked being picked up by opposition-dominated parliamentary committees and scoop hungry journalists. The only area escaping such scrutiny was the security and intelligence sectors, where single-sourcing, opaque negotiations and loosely worded contracts could all be justified on grounds of “national security”

Security concerns served as the perfect cover for some extraordinarily sharp practice. The Kenyan Auditor-General (like his Seychelles counter-part) discovered, that no due diligence had been carried, and no implementation schedules agreed. And once again noted that  ‘the non availability in most cases of detailed contract specification, invoices and delivery notes made it difficult to verify what was delivered, and the failure to keep an up-to-date register of assets left their whereabouts unclear. In others the Kenyan government clearly never stood to receive anything at all, given the nature of the companies it was doing business with. “At least seven of the supplier/credit providers do not exist in the countries in which they were purportedly registered and may therefore not be bona fide registered business firms.’ (In The case of Anglo Leasing, its address was a non existent street in Liverpool, England).

“Confusion over the firms’ identities was an important ingredient in the scam.” In the Anglo Leasing “scam” (the whistle blower) would be “confronted by a surreal situation of a government which appeared to have no clear idea with whom it was signing its multi-million-dollar deals. The anonymity of the contractors helped conceal both the mechanism and eventual beneficiaries of this laziest of scams.”

Were the people of Seychelles the victims of a “procurements scam’ of the type perfected in Kenya? And just as in Kenya it was thanks to a whistle blower that the whole scam was exposed it now up to the National Assembly to enact a “Whistle Blowers’ Protection Act, as well as an Access to Information Act.

It is surprising that the World Bank and the IMF have never seen it fit to question such huge capital flight from a country seeking its financial assistance with 40% of the population living below the level of poverty.

The questions I would like to ask: When will the World Bank and the IMF call in the forensic auditors/ accountants to investigate the procurements of national security and intelligence services provided to Seychelles by certain Irish personnel through certain named, and unnamed, or as yet undiscovered companies?  As A Seychelloise I have a right to know how, and why, such huge sums of money was being paid out for procurement of so called security and intelligence services where single-sourcing, opaque negotiations and loosely worded contracts was used “as justification” on alleged grounds of “national security”?

The second question is whether, Mr. James Michel when he was president in whom the executive authority of the Republic vested,  delegated the “function” of signing contracts which bind the Republic  to  Lise Bastienne or others, as “subordinate officers? [Article 66 (3)]

Alexia G. Amesbury

PRESIDENT MICHEL USES COURT TO PUNISH OPPONENT

Revisited:President James Michel  is using  a compliant Court to punish people who opposed him.

Bernard Sullivan, a supporter of the SNP, has been confined to a police jail for nine days on a court order based on a flimsy and unjustifiable  accusation of having made a threat and inciting violence against the  person of the President because of a comment on his Facebook page.

On March 28, 2011, Sullivan, an avid blogger on Seychelles politics, had referred to the role of James Michel in the coup d’etat of 1977 on his Facebook page. He had referred to the armed overthrow of the legitimate government as an act of treason, with a comment which amounted  to saying that Michel should be brought to justice for it.

On June 9 2011, a State prosecutor brought Sullivan  before the Victoria Magistrate’s Court  and asked that he be remanded in custody. The police have stated by an affidavit placed before the Court that the comment was a threat on the life of the President and said Sullivan’s incarceration was necessary for them to conduct investigations and to prevent him from interfering with evidence.

Sullivan’s lawyer, Bernard Georges, argued that the request was unjustified because the Facebook page had been copied and was available on the internet outside of Sullivan’s control. There was no other evidence that Sullivan could interfere with, hesaid, and the police had had over five weeks to take any action. He pointed out to the Court that the Police had done nothing since March 28 when the alleged threat was made, which would signify that they did not consider it to be a threat at all. (Picture: Sullivan led off to jail)

Georges told the Court that the custody order would be only a means to punish Sullivan pre-emptively, because no charge would be brought or, if brought, would never justify conviction.

Magistrate Brassel Adeline, who is a former official of Mr. Michel’s ruling ‘Parti Lepep’,  ordered remand of nine days in police custody.

Source: SNPseychelles.sc 6-10-11

CAN PAST PRESIDENTS BE TRACKED DOWN AND PROSECUTED?

A letter from Alexia G. Amesbury

In view of recent events and disclosures as a result of the Finance Public Account Committee FPAC, Seychelles finds itself is a position of  possible transnational corruption which has in recent years been elevated to an international offence but in practical terms it is not considered serious enough in order for heads of state or cabinet members to be prosecuted in foreign jurisdictions. There is evidence to suggest that, in certain cases, corruption may take the form of a crime against humanity. This possibility extends significantly the jurisdictional ambit of national courts and empowers the International Criminal Court to consider a case. Moreover, the restorative component of such criminal prosecutions should aim at restoring, through civil mechanisms, the funds illegally appropriated to their rightful recipients, the defrauded local populations, under the principle of self-determination.

The question is, can the actions of a past President, fall into the category of Grand Corruption of kleptocrats, who have pillaged their respective countries and their people of countless billions of dollars?

The Cambridge Dictionary defines kleptocracy as "a society whose leaders make themselves rich and powerful by stealing from the rest of the people.

Navanethem Pillay, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, says: "Corruption, whether in the public or private sectors, poses a critical threat to the enjoyment of human rights. It weakens institutions, erodes public trust in government and impairs the ability of states to fulfil their human rights obligations".

In the author’s view perpetrators should be tracked down and prosecuted, their assets sold and the proceeds used to alleviate poverty, which in Seychelles currently stands at 40%.

Combating corruption requires a strong, collective effort. Corruption is not a way of life, it is a violation of human rights. It is a crime against humanity and should be treated as such. Based on the revelations of the investigation by the FPAC it is becoming increasingly clear that legislation should be brought in, to create special courts and/or tribunals and if need be special prosecutors to tackle the level of corruption that Seychelles finds itself in, and that should be the first step towards alleviating poverty if the Government is serious about attaining  that goal.

 Another question that is widely discussed is that of immunity from prosecution of past presidents. The answer is to be found in Article 59 (2) of the Constitution, which I quote in full. “Not withstanding article 18(6) or article 19 (1) or (7) or any other law, proceedings such as are referred to in paragraph 1 (the granting of immunity from all criminal and civil claims of a sitting president) may be brought within three years of a person ceasing to hold or discharge the functions of the office of President unless the period prescribed by law for bringing the proceedings concerned had expired before the person assumed or commenced to discharge those functions.”

Alexia G. Amesbury

"VIRTUALLY NOTHING IS MOVING"

BY PATRICK GEORGES PILLAY (AKA TON PAT)

"Seychelles is greater than me." This statement has often been uttered by the Head of State, Danny Faure. It has also been uttered by yours truly as well as both leaders in the National Assembly. I believe that Seychelles is greater than all the four of us put together and therefore whatever action we take as leaders must be in the interest of Seychelles FIRST and not in the interest of our own agenda or that of our political party.

Sole protester on the day of the Solar Eclipse and new moon

I need not explain why I joined Ryan Moncherry in his protest in Central Victoria on Tliesday 22 August 2017. However, I wish to do precisely that so that there is no misunderstanding on either side of the political divide, especially as I have had mixed reactions from different people. Let me start by stating a number of facts:

1. LDS in its post-September 2016 political campaign has said time and again that it will fight for early presidential elections since Mr. Faure is not an elected President but got to State House through the 'pas baton' provision in our Constitution. This has since been amended and that is the end of it.

LDS Chairman leads the protest for fresh Presidential elections on 8th October 2016

2. Early on Tuesday morning, I mailed the Chairman of the LDS Council, Roger Mancienne, to inform him that I will be joining Ryan Moncherry in his protest at midday in my personal capacity and as Leader of Lalyans Seselwa. I recognized that I had neither the blessing nor the endorsement of the LDS Council to do what I was planning to do. Ryan Moncherry did a solo protest and when I learnt about it I was full of admiration and pride for this young man wrho has been an ardent supporter of our party 'Lalyans Seselwa' from its inception. Let me add 'en passant' that even when he had his barber's shop on Espace Building, I used to go there for my haircut and the trimming of my beard.

3. I must be loud and clear in saying that I have nothing against Mr. Faure, Mr. Meriton or Mrs. Mondon. If truth be told, I consider them as friends and work wrell with them. This fact must be obvious to all Seychellois as I sit on various committees with them and contribute fully to the discussions.

4. At no time have I said the President Faure must resign. Ryan and others who joined him have said so and I respect their views. On the board, that I carried was printed on one side "We want fresh Presidential elections" and on the flip side "We want an elected President." I will explain further down what I really wish for Seychelles...

5. One of the mails I received referred to "violent civil disobedience campaign." Let me make it clear that at no time have I said (or for that matter thought) about civil disobedience. As for violence, anybody who knows me will be very aware that I am a follower of Mahatma Ghandhi's Ahimsa i.e. non-violence. I am absolutely against violence in any form...

As a matter of fact I made it clear to all who joined Ryan on Tuesday that this will be a silent and peaceful protest. There will be no speeches, no music, no shouting or disturbance of the public at large.

Let me now explain why I joined Ryan Moncherry in his protest.

Speaker of the National Assembly of Seychelles joins protest

At the last sitting of the National Assembly, before we adjourned for recess I made a strong statement from the Chair about lack of service delivery from certain quarters in the Executive branch of Government. I targeted two ministries: Education and Agriculture. I will not repeat what I said.

This Monday 21 August I did my usual clinic' at Anse Boileau and one of the last constituents wrhom I saw brought to my attention his case which can best be described as the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. There is a young man who is an inhabitant of Anse Boileau who is specialised in the field of Education. He has a B Ed. From Australia and a Master's in 'Educational Leadership' from a university in New Zealand. This gentleman, and indeed he is one, has been in the country since November 2016 and all this time he has been doing what we in creole would call "bous trou." I have been a facilitator of learning (commonly called a teacher, I have been an educational administrator, I have been PS (Editor's note: principal secretary) of Education and I have been a Minister of Education. After listening to this young man with so much potential in educational leadership being sidelined when there is a dire need for male role models and strong and skillful male head teachers in a system that is in disarray especially in regards to indiscipline in secondary school, to say that I wras angry w’ould be a gross understatement. There and then I decided that I will now go into a higher gear to have a change of Government. This is when I decided to join Ryan Moncherry and ask for early and fresh Presidential elections.

My quest is simple to understand. I as leader of 'Lalyans Seselwa' do not believe that the co-habitation is working. I have been for it in the interest of Seychelles and have done my best to make it work. However I now firmly believe that the Executive is taking us for a ride and virtually nothing is moving (for reasons best known to themselves). In the case of the Educationalist from Anse Boileau - he had seen and met with President Danny Faure, with Minister Joel Morgan and Dr. Odile de Commarmond and still one year on he has not been given a headship even when he has proven experience as a Deputy Headteacher. Is this a repeat of the saga of the ex-A Level students teaching in the secondary schools for peanuts? ... I would like to believe that complacency is so pervasive in the public service simply because there is no leadership. Take the case of the Police. If I start writing about the lack of leadership in the police you will be reading until tomorrow’ night. And who is the Commissioner of Police answerable to? Who is his boss? You see my dear friends this country needs fresh Presidential elections within a reasonable time frame, at least by June 2018 and not in 2020.

On a final note: Regarding President Faure. He agreed and assented to scrapping the article in the Constitution that permitted the famous 'pas baton'. He should then take the matter to its logical conclusion and have fresh presidential elections. It is not healthy if we are on a journey towards a modern and robust democracy to have a selected or 'pas baton' President representing us at Summits overseas. We need an elected President. This is what credibility and good governance is all about.

After all if Mr. Faure calls for fresh presidential elections in let us say April 2018 and he participates as a presidential candidate, he may actually win. Why does he have to wait for the end of his 'mandate'? Who gave him this 'mandate' anyway?

REPORT ON THE SPECIAL AUDIT OF PAYMENTS BY NDEA AND FIU

Introduction

1. The National Drugs Enforcement Agency (NDEA) was set up under the Act 20 of 2008, which came into force in August 2008, to lead, manage, co-ordinate and implement the national efforts of the Republic to combat drug offences. Responsibilities of the NDEA falls under the Chief Officer appointed by the President under the Act. Effective October 2016, the statutory functions of the Agency was transferred from the President to the Minister responsible for Home Affairs vide S.I.73 of 2016.

2. The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) was created under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2006 and was established as a Unit within the Central Bank of Seychelles. Effective 18 August 2008, the Unit was formed into a Body Corporate vide the Anti-Money Laundering Amendment Act, 2008. The primary objectives of the Unit is to monitor, train and enforce compliance by reporting entities with the obligations imposed in Part 2 of the Act. The Director of the Unit reports to the President, pursuant to Part 3, Section 16 (8) of the Anti-money laundering (Amendment) Act, 2008.

3. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee requested the intervention of the Auditor General vide letter dated 27 March 2017, to investigate a number of payments made by the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and the National Drugs Enforcement Agency (NDEA) from funds allocated in the national budget.

4. The FPAC informed that it was involved in an investigation and asked the Auditor General to provide detailed information on payments, specifically consultancy (local and foreign) and other fees made by the above two entities from 2007 to 2016 with with special emphasis on the remittances to two companies, namely, Solas Beo and Tech Ltd.

5. Taking into consideration the request, Office of the Auditor General (OAG) undertook a special audit of the accounts and records of the NDEA and FIU (Entities), as mandated by Article 158 of the Constitution and under Section 22 (1) of the Auditor General Act, 2010, in order to submit a special report to the National assembly.

6. The principal audit objective was to carry out sufficient audit procedures to establish as to whether (a) the selected transactions were relevant to the Entities ; (b) adequate and satisfactory books of accounts and records were maintained by the Entities in relation to the execution of the transactions; (c) the entities complied with the prescribed financial procedures (i.e. Financial Instructions, Accounting Manual, PFMA, 2012 and PFMA Regulations, 2014) and the relevant legislative provisions (i.e. tax and procurements); and (d) adequate internal controls existed in the Entities to ensure integrity of financial transactions and accounting records.

Methodology

7. The audit was mainly conducted as follows:

• Obtained all payment transactions from the Treasury Information System (TIS) relevant to the Entities for the period under audit (2009-2016);

• Selected transactions for further testing placing emphasis on foreign or local consultancy services of recurring nature charged to the account codes and significant and repetitive overseas procurements;

• Scrutinised the payments details in relation to respective payment vouchers, remittance advice, bank transfer payment voucher (BKTR), invoices, contract agreements and other supporting documents, including payment instructions to the Ministry of Finance. Further, Audit scrutinised the invoices to verify their genuineness/authenticity, relevance to the Entities and as well as the company details, contact information and bank account details of the payees.

• Assessed the processes followed against the prescribed financial policies, procedures regulations and the control environment;

• Interviewed the Director and the Head of Administration and Finance of FIU and the Director of Human Resources and Administration at the NDEA for obtaining information.

Scope limitation

8. Audit could not obtain supporting documents, such as, payment vouchers, invoices and other relevant documents in respect of 2009 and 2010 although the treasury system revealed some payment transactions for the 2 years. Thus the audit covered the details of payments for the period 2011 to 2016 only. Audit did not examine the records of the Central Bank of Seychelles to establish as to whether the foreign exchange payments selected from the Treasury records were actually remitted to the respective company/personal accounts as appearing in the relevant documents. Instead, reliance was placed on the BKTR documents raised by the Treasury for the payments having been effected. Furthermore, Audit could not obtain all the information it required from the Entities in view that the senior management personnel had left the Entities at the time of the audit.

Disclaimer

9. The report that follows discusses the exceptions that came to light in the course of the audit during the period April to June 2017. It is to be noted that mentioning of the names of any business entity, person, or an individual made in this report is without any prejudice or ill will to such persons but only for the purpose of better understanding of the issues arising from the audit. An audit report is not based on proof but sufficient and reasonable evidence collected during the audit exercise and as the matters appeared to the auditors with sufficient knowledge of government financial systems and procedures.

Summary of conclusions

10. A contract for consultancy service would typically contain terms and conditions of deliverables, timelines, fees, arbitration, etc. In the absence of the contracts with Solas Beo Inc, Tech Limited, Calendula, and Barry Galvin & Son (for the period prior to 05.01.2015) Audit could not determine the justification for the variable amounts paid to these companies.

11. The invoices for payments of services appeared to have been raised internally, for example in one instance, an invoice supposedly issued by Calendula was in fact on Solas Beo letter head with particulars of bank account of Calendula.

12. The nature of services provided could not be determined as they were not specified, nor had any reports been kept by both Entities as evidence of the services provided/received. Generally, there was a lack of documentation of services required and the receipt of such

services in support of significant financial transactions. However, if the documentation was done, then there was a failure to retain the same for future reference and audit purpose.

13. There were indications of significant management influence with limited scope for segregation of functions/duties in both Entities. All payment documents including Application for Payment in Foreign Currency – Central Bank of Seychelles (SWIFT) payment instructions forms were completed and submitted by the two Chief Officers (Head of entities), to the Ministry of Finance for endorsement and ultimately forwarded to the Central Bank for payment. It appeared that both Entities and the MoF approved the above applications for transfer of funds to various accounts in the absence of a documented proof of receipt of services as per the relevant contracts but only on the basis of the invoices.

14. Requests for exemption of the consultancy services from the procurement regulations, when submitted were approved on the basis that it stated “for reasons of state security”. Furthermore, the requests were approved on the basis of invoices, which was after the services have been delivered but not prior to procurement, as normally the case.

15. Where the consultancy contracts were drawn with existing expatriate senior personnel on the payroll and paid in Seychelles Rupees, it is not clear if payments on contract in foreign exchange related to extra duties/services or additional remuneration for the same position.

16. Calendula and Tech Limited were registered as International companies (offshore company-IBC) with the Financial Services Authority through a local agent and deriving revenue from and operating in the Seychelles. Although IBCs are not subject to tax, it is not clear whether these companies were liable to business tax.

Recommendations

17. According to circular No. 1 of 2015 issued in December 2015 by Procurement Oversight Unit of (POU) the Ministry of Finance, Trade and the Blue Economy and pursuant to Section 10(1) and (2) of the Public Procurement Regulations 2014, copies of signed contracts, which also includes the provision of consultancy services, approved by the National Tender Board (award Committee) must be submitted to the Procurement Oversight Unit. In addition, the Procurement Oversight Unit, Circular No 1 issued in November 2011, states that the POU will not entertain any request for “retrospective approval” for an adopted procurement procedure. The Procurement Oversight Unit must ensure that these provisions are applied in all procurement cases involving national budgetary provisions.

18. The Ministry of Finance must ensure that prior to endorsing the ‘Application for Payment in Foreign Currency – Central Bank of Seychelles (SWIFT)’ payment instructions forms for foreign exchange payments, checks are performed to ensure that valid contracts are available, amounts paid are in accordance with obligations and further, approval/exemptions have been obtained from the POU where applicable.

19. The Entities (FIU/NDEA) must ensure that appropriate documentation of the financial transactions are kept and procedures stipulated in the Public Finance Management Regulations/Financial Instructions are adhered so as to provide an audit trail as well as to safeguard financial records in good condition for reference in the future. These should cover fixed assets and inventory items owned and operated by the Entities.

20. Where there are doubts with regards to the liability for any tax by the IBCs registered in Seychelles, doing business in Seychelles and earning an income in Seychelles, the matter should be referred to the SRC for a determination. Similarly, the liability for personal income tax (PIT) of the personnel who were also on the payroll of the two Entities or elsewhere in Seychelles, needs to be established in consultation with the SRC. Also, the withholding tax liability of the non-resident legal service provider must be referred to SRC for a ruling. These are matters that would require the close attention of SRC as similar cases may exist in other governmental entities, particularly, consultancy services.

System outline

21. The Head of Administration and Finance of FIU was responsible for the accounting function and verifying all invoices for receipt of goods/services. The Director (Chief Officer) approved all invoices, payment vouchers as well as completed Application for Payment in Foreign Currency – Central Bank of Seychelles (SWIFT) payment instructions forms to be submitted to the Ministry of Finance. In the case of NDEA, Director of Human Resources and Administration was responsible for the accounting function and certifying all invoices for payment. The Chief Officer approved all invoices, payment vouchers and Application for Payment in Foreign Currency – Central Bank of Seychelles (SWIFT) payment instructions forms to be submitted to the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance approved the completed forms and forwarded them to the Central Bank of Seychelles for effecting transfers. Once effected, the CBS advised the Ministry of Finance/Treasury through a debit note which was used by the Treasury to raise the Bank Transfer Payment document (BKTR) and the relevant voucher to update the general ledger. It is from this ledger that Audit extracted the financial transactions for further examination in relation to their payment documents. However, the Treasury ledger did not show the financial transactions of both FIU and NDEA for the years prior to 2009 whereas for the payments effected prior to 2011 by NDEA the records were unavailable according to the Director of Human Resources and Administration of the Agency.

Solas Beo Inc

22. The NDEA and FIU effected regular quarterly payments to Solas Beo Inc, which according to online search was a registered company, incorporated in Mauritius on 10.12.2007 bearing company ID no number C076299. The registration address of the company was C/O Beresford Trust & Corporate Services Ltd, 1001, Alexander House, 35 Ebene, Cybercity, Mauritius. At the time of the audit, the offshore company’s status was Active. The Directors and Shareholders of the Company could not be determined. See Attachment 1 for relevant information.

23. The Central Bank was requested to effect payments to the beneficiary’s (Solas) Euro bank account (number 7643621) with the Barclays Bank, Seychelles, following the approval of the Ministry of Finance on the basis of payment request/instructions submitted by the Chief Officers of FIU and NDEA.

24. All payments to Solas Beo Inc for the period 2009 to 2015 by FIU amounted to SR 41,999,846 as appeared from the relevant documents examined while all payments from NDEA for the period 2009 to 2015 amounted to SR48,765,843, with a combined total of SR 90,765,689. See Attachment 2 for details of the payments examined.

Findings

25. Of the sum of SR48,765,843 by NDEA, Audit could not verify a sum of SR13,262,083 incurred during 2009 (SR6,111,920) and 2010 (SR7,150,162) in view that there were no supporting documents. See Attachment 2 (a) page 2 for details.

26. Fees invoiced for ‘expatriate services’ and corresponding payments had increased significantly over the years, from €47,500 in 2009 to €88,000 in 2015, in the case of FIU without a documented justification. In addition to ‘expatriate services’, also included on invoices were variable amounts ranging from €28,500 to €58,750 (FIU) charged as “special duties”. The same applied to NDEA with sums ranging from €97,000 to €165,000 per quarter. However, nature/details of the work performed were not specified on invoices or by way of reports or some other documentation.

27. Payments to Solas Beo were effected on a quarterly basis in variable amounts by both Entities. However, Audit could not determine the basis upon which fees were calculated in view that invoices issued merely stated “expatriate services” for the respective quarter and were vague, which did not permit the identification of the nature of services provided. Audit could not obtain the relevant contracts (or a valid copy of the same) stipulating the terms and conditions despite requests made to the Director FIU and the Director Human Resources and Administration of NDEA.

28. Of 20 payments made by NDEA, 18 were not supported by original invoices. Further, in all cases, information typically found on invoices, such as, contact information (telephone no., fax and e-mail address) invoice number and signature of the company representative authorising the invoices were not found stated on the face of the invoices.

29. In all instances, in the case of FIU, Audit did not find the approval of the Procurement Oversight Unit and National Tender Board nor were requests submitted by the FIU, contrary to the requirement of the Public Procurement Act, 2009 and Public Procurement Regulations, 2014, (regulations 9 & 11, Schedule 1) in respect of consultancy services. In the case of NDEA, in 14 out of 20 payments were without the approval of POU. Where the POU approval was sought, it was noted that, approval was sought retrospectively at the end of the quarter on the basis of the invoice and not prior to soliciting of services.

30. The Ministry of Finance approved ‘Application for Payment in Foreign Currency – Central Bank of Seychelles (SWIFT)’ payment instructions form was not sighted in one case and the relevant BKTR document was not sighted in 18 cases in the case of FIU. In the case of NDEA, the relevant BKTR document was not sighted in 7 cases.

31. In two cases of FIU, invoices paid in 2009 (i.e. 23.11.2009 for Euro 45,650 and 20.09.2009 for Euro 47,500) were signed by one Mr Joseph Cully as Director of Solas Beo. Further audit scrutiny revealed that in 2010, Mr Cully was on the payroll of FIU as an ‘asset agent’. The payroll for the year 2009 was not available for audit inspection to confirm if the said person was in fact in employment with FIU when signing the invoice on behalf of Solas Beo and the services invoiced were not already being performed internally by the said persons in post.

Tech Company Ltd

32. Tech Limited was registered with the Financial Services Authority on 01 April 2011 as an international business company (company number 088982). Although requested, Audit was not provided with particulars of the Directors and Shareholders by FSA stating that the information was not available on the company file. It is to be noted that the certificate of official search from FSA dated 28.04.2017 indicates the company as “not in good standing”. See details in Attachment 3. According to banking details on the invoices, all transfers were effected by the Central Bank on behalf of NDEA to a Euro account (2801001340302) with ABC Banking Corporation Ltd in Mauritius.

33. All payments to Tech Limited for the period 2013 to 2016 by NDEA amounted to SR18,421,559 as appeared from the relevant documents examined; details in Attachment 4.

Findings

34. It was noted from the invoices examined that Tech company was charging for “Project Development in relation to classifieds Project SRU” from July 2013 to Oct 2015 on a quarterly basis at a fee of US Dollar 142,548.76 initially which was then revised to €137,000 in 2015 and further increased to €137,740 in 2016. The nature of services as shown on invoices was “personnel, investigative and legal services”. The Agency, however, could not produce the contract (or a valid copy of it) with the above company to confirm the nature of services and other terms and conditions of obtaining such services.

35. Further, the contact details, such as, the complete address of the company, telephone numbers and email address and invoice number, which are typically found on an invoice were not included on the face of the invoices. The signature of the representative of the company was also not shown on the invoices. Further, 3 out of 10 invoices were not original but copies.

Calendula Ltd.

36. Calendula Ltd was registered with the Financial Services Authority (FSA) on 05 March 2013 as an International Company (company number 120570).Audit requested particulars of the Directors and Shareholders and was informed by FSA that the information was not available on the company file. It is to be noted that the certificate of official search from FSA (28.04.2017) indicates the company as “not in good standing”. See Attachment 5. According to banking details on the invoice, all transfers were effected by the Central Bank on behalf of FIU to a Euro account number (002801001340402) with ABC Banking Corporation Ltd in Mauritius.

37. All payments to Calandula Ltd for the period 2015 to 2016 by FIU amounted to SR13,060,944 as appeared from the relevant documents examined; see details in Attachment 6.

Findings

38. The Unit could not produce the contract ( or a valid copy of it) with Calendula for the Audit to determine the nature of services expected to be provided/received and the amounts payable according to the contract. The Unit received two invoices per quarter in variable amounts, one for ‘expatriate services’ and the other for ‘special duties and operations’.

39. Invoices lacked pertinent details, such as, complete address of the company, contact details (telephone, email address/website), invoice number and the signature of company

representative. The initial invoice dated 15.07.2015 for Calendula was an invoice drawn on Solas Beo headed paper which was crossed out by hand with the name “Calendula” inserted. See Attachment 7 for details.

40. Application for Payment in Foreign Currency – Central Bank of Seychelles (SWIFT) payment instructions forms approved by the Ministry of Finance were not sighted in 7 out of 13 payments made. In addition, BKTR document was not sighted in 10 out of 13 payments made.

Christopher Mooney

41. Mr Mooney was employed as a ‘senior asset agent’ with FIU from 01 October 2011 to April 2016 and was paid a local monthly salary of SR 27,069. Effective, June 2013, Mr Mooney received a supplementary payment of €15,000 on a quarterly basis, charged as foreign consultancy, which according to payment vouchers related to his services as ‘operation consultant’ to SeyPIC (Seychelles Piracy Intelligence Cell). Payments were effected to Mr. Mooney’s Euro account (0101043169) with Barclays Bank, Seychelles.

42. All payments to Mr. Mooney charged to overseas consultancy services, excluding salaries, during the period June 2013 to April 2016 was equivalent to SR.3,071,223, as appeared from the relevant documents examined; see details in Attachment 8.

Findings

43. According to his employment contract dated 28.12.2013, effective for the year 2014, his post title was stated as ‘Senior Asset Agent’ despite the relevant invoices showing as ‘Operation Consultant’.

44. Personal Income Tax (PIT) was not deducted and remitted to the Seychelles revenue Commission from the fees paid in foreign exchange in respect of which the employee would have been liable. Total liability for the period 2013 to April 2016 was SR460,683; (SR3,071,223*0.15).

45. Application for ‘Payment in Foreign Currency – Central Bank of Seychelles (SWIFT)’ payment instructions forms were not sighted in 3 out of 13 payments made.

Barry Galvin and Son

46. Barry Galvin & Son was a Solicitor, based in Ireland responsible for providing legal services to the FIU. Fees of €40,000 in 2013, which increased to €50,000, quarterly, charged by the above were paid to his account with Allied Irish Bank (22612010) in Cork, Ireland. In addition, Mr Galvin claimed for ancillary fees, such as, travelling costs, subsistence allowances and others, the re-imbursement thereof was also transferred to his account in Ireland.

47. All payments to Barry Galvin and Sons for the period 2010 to 2016 by FIU amounted to SR 18,319,967 as appeared from the relevant documents examined; see details in Attachment 9.

Findings

48. Other than a letter of appointment dated 05.01.2015, contracts with Barry Galvin & Son dating back to 2013, when the services were solicited could not be produced to Audit to ascertain the terms and conditions including amounts payable although the letter of appointment refers to a contracted services specified in Appendix 1, Appendix 2, Appendix 3, Appendix 4 and Appendix 5, which was stated to be Classified. Audit did not sight these Appendixes nor the contract.

49. In all cases, payments were effected on the basis of proforma invoices instead of originals which is contrary to the Financial Instructions 0520 which states no payment should be authorised unless payment vouchers are supported by the original invoices and/or other suitable documentation such as receipt, GRN and delivery note, etc.

50. There was no evidence to indicate that withholding tax payable on technical services fees by non-residents which would amount to SR2,747,995.13, see details in Attachment 10, was paid to the Seychelles Revenue Commission in accordance with Section 66 (1) of the Business tax Act, 2009, Section (3) of the First Schedule, had he been liable.

51. In 4 cases, the Ministry of Finance approved ‘Application for Payment in Foreign Currency – Central Bank of Seychelles (SWIFT)’ payment instructions form was not sighted. In another 5 cases, BKTR document was not sighted.

Local consultancy

52. One Mrs M.H was appointed as a Consultant Analyst with the FIU effective 01 January 2015 for a period of two years, at a fee of SR.30,000 per month according to a (undated) letter/contract. The role of the Consultant Analyst was to conduct due diligence checks of foreign personnel in relation to travel records, immigration data, work permits and other data available in the department of immigration according to an attachment to the letter mentioned above.

53. All payments to the above person for the period 2014 to 2016 by FIU amounted to SR 960,000 as appeared from the relevant documents examined.

Findings

54. No contract was available prior to 2015 despite payments commencing on 05.06.2014, which totalled SR240,000 up to the end of 2014. The contract was undated and signed by Mrs M.H only; the signature of the Chief Officer was not sighted. According to this letter she was entitled to leave at the rate 1.75 days per completed month of service, not to be accumulated beyond 42 days, implying that it was some sort of employment contract with FIU.

55. Narrative on the invoices indicated ‘general consultancies’ whereas details appended to the ‘letter of contract’ was specifically in relation to ‘immigration consultancies’.

56. Personal Income tax totalling SR144,000 (SR960,000*0.15) was not deducted from the payments totalling SR 960,000 made for the period June 2014 to December 2016.

Daniel Technologies

57. Daniel Technologies is a company in Ireland which supplies security equipment and uniforms to NDEA upon order. All payments to Daniel Technologies for the period 2011 to 2016 by NDEA amounted to SR6,947,386, which was paid to AIB Bank, Dublin (a/c 01610009) as appeared from the relevant documents examined; see details in Attachment 11.

Findings

58. In most cases, the original invoices were not found by Audit in support of the payments made and the supplier’s signature was not found on invoices. Further, the POU approval was not sighted in respect of 15 cases.

59. Various items of supplies paid for could not be traced to inventory records in evidence of receipt of the items purchased. According to the Agency, inventory records were not maintained, contrary to the requirements of Financial Instructions 1203.

60. In 10 cases, the Ministry of Finance approved ‘Application for Payment in Foreign Currency – Central Bank of Seychelles (SWIFT)’ payment instructions form was not sighted while the BKTR document was not sighted in another 25 cases.

Finbarr O’Leary and Thomas Quilter

61. Mr. Finbarr O’Leary was appointed by the Director (signed) as Deputy Director of FIU for a period of 18 months effective 02 April 2015, to cease on 30 November 2016. Similarly, Mr. Thomas Quilter was appointed by the Director (signed) as Director of the FIU under for a period of 24 months effective 10 March 2015. Both officers were paid monthly salaries on the payroll of FIU. Other than monthly salaries both officers received monthly ‘relocation allowances’ charged as consultancy services and paid quarterly. This provision was cited as being “in accordance with the overall service provision contract between State House and the Service Provider, Calendula Ltd.” Relocation allowances were transferred to the respective beneficiaries’ bank accounts in Ireland; Bank of Ireland (40931088) and IPBS (54208089).

Findings

62. Sums paid for relocation allowance varied each quarter ranging from Euro 4,700 to Euro 6,400 per quarter. According to the contract, the terms and rates of allowance was in accordance with the overall service provision contract between the State House and the service provider Calandula Ltd. However, Audit could not ascertain amounts payable as they were not specified in the respective contracts of appointment. Moreover, as the contract with Calandula was not sighted, Audit could not confirm the arrangements.

63. Personal income tax (PIT) which would amount to SR.76,059.30 (SR507,062*0.15) and SR. 132,205.80 (SR881,372*0.15) in respect of Mr Finbarr O’Leary and Mr Thomas Quilter, had they been liable, was not deducted from relocation benefits/consultancy services paid in the sums of SR507,061 and SR881,372 respectively. See details of payments in Attachment 12.

64. Mr O’ Leary was last included on the payroll in November 2016. He was, however, paid a gross salary of SR42,199.95 on 21.12.2016 which appeared to be an overpayment in view he was no longer employed by FIU. The justification for the payment was not documented on the payment voucher and supporting documents.

65. In 2 cases, the BKTR document was not sighted by Audit in respect of the payments made the above personnel.

Niall Scully, Declan Barber(top) and Barry Galvin; the Irish hired by James Alix Michel