CONVICTED MURDERER RELEASED IN EXCHANGE FOR SUPPORT TO PARTI LEPEP?

2015 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The second petition filed by the SNP yesterday contains an alarming number of allegations of irregularities, supported by affidavits, that are said to have taken place during the second round of the election and that unduly influenced the outcome of the process. The SNP also claims that over a thousand letters were distributed to people by the Social Welfare Agency, offering them supplementary income in exchange for their votes.

The Presidential candidate of the Seychelles National Party (SNP), Wavel Ramkalawan has filed a second petition in the Constitutional court yesterday, in which he averred that the 2015 Presidential election should be declared null and void as it did not comply with certain provisions of the Elections Act and because numerous illegal practices were committed by the ruling party, Parti Lepep, thus preventing free and fair elections.

 In this second petition, Mr Ramkalawan avers that the irregularities were so numerous that they cast serious doubts on the fairness of the election process. In those circumstances and in light of the fact that only 193 votes separate Wavel Ramkalawan and James Michel, he has asked that the 2015 Presidential election be declared null and void.

The election petition also states that there were irregularities in the counting of ballot papers and that this affected the results of the election. It thus seeks a recount of the ballot papers used nationwide in the election.

The election petition is the second petition to be filed by the leader of the SNP who contested the Presidential runoff under the banner “Union for Change”, with the support of three other opposition candidates. The election petition has been filed under Article 51 of the Constitution and Section 44 of the Elections Act, CAP 68A.

The first petition filed on Monday 28 December averred that the announcement of the percentage awarded to contender James Michel was incorrect and therefore the Certificate of election issued to Mr Michel “was erroneous, improper and illegal”. It averred that no candidate won more than 50% of the votes cast and asked the court to declare the election null and void and to order a third ballot or subsequent ones until such time one candidate received more than 50% of the votes cast.

 As was the case for the first petition, the second one is also being served against three respondents which are the Electoral Commission represented by its Chairman Hendrick Gappy, James Michel, the leader of Parti lepep and the Attorney General, Ronny Govinden.

 Mr Ramkalawan presented over 20 affidavits to support his claims that the Presidential runoff was marred by illegal practices. These included affidavits from people who were approached and offered large sums of money to vote for the ruling party or who were made offers that sought to write off their loans as well as those who were promised loans.

More specifically, the petition claims that over a thousand letters from the Social Welfare Agency offering supplementary incomes to voters in order to induce them to vote for Parti Lepep, were also issued in the days leading to the Presidential runoff. Long queues were said to have been observed at the agency’s office at Oceangate House.

The petition also claims that opposition supporters who were former government officials and thus close to the ruling party, were approached and offered high positions in government if they agreed to back Parti Lepep. The petition alleges that the leader of Lalyans Seselwa, Patrick Pillay was approached by former President Albert Rene and offered a high post in government if he gave his support to Parti Lepep. Another supporter of Lalyans Seselwa, Vincent Remie Larue, was offered “a good post in the government” if he agreed to change political allegiance while Peter Rodney Jules also from Layans Seselwa was allegedly contacted by Sylvette Pool and offered “anything he wanted, including the writing off his loans with the Small Business Finance Agency, if he procured the vote of former supporters of Parti Lepep who had switched to the opposition”.

The petition also claims that a former Lalyans Seselwa supporter from Roche Caimain, Dania Valentin, who spoke in the Party Political Broadcast (PPB) of Lalyans Seselwa prior to the first round and who subsequently endorsed Parti Lepep in a PPB during the second round, was told her companion who was sentenced to life imprisonment and who had served 15 years already, would be freed if she switched allegiance. According to the petition, her companion was indeed released on the first day of polling of the second round, on December 16. This was a couple of days after she agreed to feature in James Michel’s PPB.

Dania Valentin

The election petition further claims that the authorities used scaremongering tactics to threaten the electorate into voting for the ruling party, including threats that UAE-based airline, Etihad Airways, the minority shareholder of the national airline Air Seychelles, will pull out of its commitment in Seychelles in the eventuality of a victory of the opposition and that this would lead to loss of jobs and economic hardship for Seychelles.

The case of the Speaker of the National Assembly, Patrick Herminie who sought to engage into party politics during the cooling off period was also mentioned. He told viewers of the Seychelles Broadcasting Corporation (SBC) that hardships would ensue if Mr Ramkalawan were to be elected President, as he would not get the support of a Parti Lepep-led National Assembly. He said the National Assembly would block any budget presented to the National Assembly by an SNP-led government, therefore leading to “shutdown”.

The petition also states that scaremongering also targeted civil servants, as they were told they would lose their jobs if they did not keep Parti Lepep in power. The name of Beryl Botsoie, the head teacher of La Rosiere School was cited. This woman, in a school meeting in the days leading to the second ballot, accused SNP leader of arrogance and invited voters not to vote for him “and warned them that if the petitioner (Ed’s note: Mr Ramkalawan) was elected, they risked their livelihoods in general and in particular they won’t be paid as the new government would be unlikely to pass a budget”.

A similar incident was also recorded at a meeting of the Seychelles People’s Defense Forces (SPSD) officers on December 11 2015 where top military personnel including Lt Colonel Clifford Roseline, Reverend Louis Agathine, the SPDF’s chaplain and Major Simon Dine, Coast Guard Commander, accused Mr Ramkalawan “of arrogance, selfishness and being disorderly, or making empty promises and clearly inviting the members of the SPDF not to vote for him”.

The election petition adds that National Drug Enforcement Agency (NDEA) officers also abused their position on December 18, which was main polling day, where they were seen in areas knows to be drug hotspots, to intimidate drug users and prevent them from going to the polls.

Businessman, James Lesperance’s name is also cited in the petition which avers that he paid money to Adolphe Jason Dubel, Ron Philippe Laporte and Steve Elie Labrosse and 12 other young men, “in return for their identity cards so as to prevent them from voting during the second ballot”.

With regards to irregularities in the counting of ballot papers, the petition claims that votes cast in special voting stations did not tally with seven polling stations in electoral areas, showing a discrepancy “amounting to nine votes, two fewer and seven extra”.

These electoral areas were Anse Boileau, Au Cap, Anse Etoile, Bel Air, English River, Glacis and Pointe Larue. For instance, 259 residents of English River had voted at the special polling stations ahead of the main polling day and yet, three extra enveloped were added to the ballot boxes, bringing the total number to 262!

There were also discrepancies in three other polling stations where the number of votes counted did not tally with the number of ballots issued; these were Anse aux Pins Cascade and Glacis. Mr Ramkalawan said the Electoral Commission “has not been able to satisfactorily explain” these discrepancies. The petition also claims that in Anse aux Pins, two ballot papers were marked by ballpoint ink instead of the black marker supplied to voters.

The Election petition also cites a number of cases of non-compliance to the Elections Act by the Electoral Commission. It states the commission failed to ensure that the ink and invisible spray used were of good quality. Furthermore it failed to ensure that each voter could only cast one vote as it allowed a special voting station at the National Library on the main polling day on December 18th and could not satisfactorily verify whether people had voted more than once.

Mr Ramkalawan also states that at least “two unknown persons voted in the special polling station in the names of Damion Charles Hoareau and Stan Nerick Fanchette, both voters registered in the Inner islands electoral area”.

 It said that the Electoral Commission also failed to prevent the “withholding of Identity cards by staff of the North East Point Home for the Elderly and coaching of elderly voters by the Acting nursing sister at the Home”.

The election petition will be served on the three respondents this week, and the case is expected to be heard as soon as the Constitutional Court resumes its session next Monday.

The result of the presidential runoff was declared on December 19, giving SNP, 49.85% of the total votes cast and 50.15% to Parti Lepep, something the opposition is saying is factually incorrect. There were 63,893 votes cast in the second round, with 62,831 valid votes and 1062 votes rejected.

Source: Today in Seychelles

THE BIG INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP JAMES WONG

By DB

"I wouldn't be surprised if we go into a third round"

Anglican Bishop James Wong was perhaps one of the most vocal dignitaries in the country in the weeks leading to the 2015 Presidential election as well as during its aftermath. For this reason and because of the fact that he is politically neutral, we chose him as our first guest for this year. In the interview that follows, Bishop Wong does not paint a very pretty picture of what he witnessed during what was probably one of the most important democratic events in Seychelles' post independence history.

2015 was a bit hectic for Seychelles and we ended the year with a warning which you made during a post electoral meeting with the election observer missions to the effect that there might be violence in the country following the results of the election. That did not happen but do you think the warning is still valid as we start this year?

My comments came following persistent rumours as well as reliable information that I had to the effect that the risk of violence following the proclamation of the results was high. There was an unfortunate incident in Port Glaud and I learnt that somebody had been shot with a rubber bullet there. There was also the Cascade incident. So yes, there were some tense incidents but fortunately, they were not as widespread as we had feared. The tension in the country was so palpable and I could not very well say to international observers, "well done, we'll happily wait for your report in three months". I took issue with the fact that the observers refused to say whether the election was free and fair, a statement either way would have calmed things and reassured many. It can't be that hard - either it was free and fair or it wasn't. The Church does not support any political party but we hear many things and we work with the information that we receive. And I have no qualms saying it - the observers' stance - their refusal to say whether the election was free and fair - was not acceptable. If SADC could have presented a preliminary report after less than a week, what stopped them from releasing the final one?

But they explained why they deferred the publication of their findings. What do you say to their argument that they don't want to prejudice the court case that will be heard soon?

That argument does not convince me since some of those observer missions have still not released their final reports following the elections in 2011!

Then what is point of their presence in the country to observe the election? Do you feel that their presence is important to the election process?

I think it is important to have them here as long as we hear their conclusions and they release their reports based on their findings. It is important to have this assessment from the international community but it does not need to take as long as it has for them to release their reports.

But what difference does their presence make? The fact that they were here did not stop many things that should not have happened from happening. Bishop Wiehe, the Seychelles Interfaith Council (SIFCO) and yourself issued important messages to the voters and the political parties but were they heeded in the end?

I think the answer is yes, it has made a difference in the sense that it reassures people in terms of the confidence in the democratic process. On both rounds of the election, Bishop Wiehe and myself went around all the polling stations and during the first round, it was a joy to have been able to encourage and give strength to people who spent a lot of time waiting in the queues. It was a joy to encourage many youngsters to have patience, it was a joy to give a smile to people as they were queuing up, as a way of saying, “you did well, you have gone to vote”. And I think that the number of people that came down to cast their votes has been very encouraging and, in this sense, the voice of the church and of SIFCO has been heard. During the second round, I was able to address the nation through the SBC, to encourage voters to go to the polling stations early, to vote so the process of counting could start as soon as possible. And I think this was done in most polling stations.

What about the other messages, were they heard? Especially the one about not selling one’s vote?

The message was do not sell and do not buy. If there's no one buying, there'll be no one selling. And it was a very funny situation that we witnessed on the eve of the first round. People were queuing up at Oceangate House to buy new ID cards.

What do you mean by "buying" cards?

Well one has to pay for new ID cards. And to be able to obtain a new ID card, one has to go to the police station and declare the current one lost. So I asked myself how come so many people had suddenly lost their ID cards on the eve of election. Why this sudden urgency to get new ID cards?

You'll be even more surprised to know that the procedure was free for two weeks prior to the election but that this was never advertised through normal channels! And this brings us back to free and fair elections: the observers have not released their report but you were there and you saw how things went so what is your conclusion?

What we saw on the polling days, Bishop Wiehe and myself, has been very encouraging. We saw people coming down to vote en masse and this was our main objective. What happened inside the polling stations was not part of our observation because we weren't allowed to go in even though some very nice Presiding officers did kindly let us in at some polling stations. From what we saw, everything did seem to be going well inside the polling stations. Those who had difficulties were helped and I think that the staff of the Electoral Commission did a very good job.

But to me, what surprises me - and I don't know what the law says, I am only talking about the sense of right and wrong - if there's any contestation of the election result, a swearing in ceremony should not have taken place. I think it would have been better to wait for the clearance from the Electoral Commission, the Constitutional Court to say what has happened exactly and to say who the winner actually is. But I suppose that the fact that the chairperson of the Electoral Commission had already declared that the winner was James Michel made it "normal" for James Michel to be sworn in.

Except that the argument still hasn't been settled with regards to whether James Michel actually got more than half the votes cast or not. But by the time this mistake was realised, Mr Michel had been sworn in by the Chief Justice and Mr Gappy had stopped "commenting"! And despite this confusion, Ministers have been sworn in and Parti Lepep is ruling the country and there's been no institution that has come out and said, "wait a minute, are we making a mistake?" What do you make of this?

This is precisely the reason I raised the concern with the electoral observers. Had they come out and said the election was free and fair, then fine, no problem. But the fact that they have not been able to say the election was free and fair is the problem. The chair of the African Union said that there had been incidents in one polling station but added that she couldn’t generalise. But if there were incidents in one polling station and that this incident could bring any candidate 1000 votes...

... Or even just 200!

Or 200 - it could have swung the election! She cannot say that incidents in one polling station should not be generalised when it could actually change the results of the election. Her correct report should have been that there had been incidents in one polling station that could have had a bearing on the election results! That was my main concern when I spoke to the SADC observers. And what will they actually say in their final reports, is what I'd like to know. They all said they had heard reports of buying and selling of ID cards but that they can’t prove it. They can't prove it and yet they all mention it?

That said, Seychelles still being a young democracy, I think that we are still in the process of learning. We've seen what happened in the first round and the last voter at Anse Etoile voted at 11pm and we have learnt from those mistakes and the second round was much better. I think we have to see it as a process of learning. Seychelles is still in the process of learning and this is why it is good for us to go through those unfortunate occurrences so that we can learn from them. I think that Seychellois in general have shown a lot of maturity but that, at the same time, some have shown that they can be bought and this is so sad. The Seychellois need to realise that people have fought so that today they are given this power to vote and for the sake of our ancestors who fought so hard to get the right to vote, we have to learn not to sell our dignity.

Maybe this can be explained by the past? What is a vote worth if it can be nullified by a coup d'état?

Again this is where the process of learning comes in. Whatever has happened in the past, happened in the past. We need to learn from the past. It is important for the Seychellois nation to grow and understand the value of their vote.

And 2016 will be very important in that respect. A petition was filed last week and we have the National Assembly elections to look forward to. Democratically speaking, this will be a big test for the country, don't you think?

Again, I think the political parties - and I'm talking about both sides - will be working very hard at the grassroots level and this is good for our democracy. And I think both sides will have to go and get engaged in electoral education. The Church will also have to play the role of electoral educator. The Electoral Commission (EC) has to put the emphasis on electoral education. The whole of Seychelles has to go through a time of training to understand what the role of an election is.

It didn't seem to me that the party in power was too much in favour of voter education during the last election…

At SIFCO, very early on, even before the election was announced, we were already thinking about the education of voters and all our communiqués went towards this. And again, both sides of the political spectrum have to learn from mistakes made in the past. And because democracy is still young here, we have to take time to learn from past mistakes and grow. Both Parti Lepep and the opposition parties will need to put the emphasis on the training, whatever the means. As for the Church, we can do it through Sunday worship. A lot has to be done.

Do you think the Electoral Commission also needs to learn from its mistakes?

At the time, we decided to start our voter education campaign, we felt at SIFCO that we needed to involve the EC but the issue was that the EC was not seen by the Seychellois as independent. In many circumstances, we have seen that the Seychellois do not have enough trust in the Electoral Commission and this was obvious in the way the opposition parties' request for a softcopy of the voters register was dealt with. But as time went by, I think Seychellois and then the political parties started to trust the EC a little bit more. Even on the day the results were proclaimed, Wavel Ramkalawan thanked the EC so there has been a shift in the perception, at least by political parties.

A few days before the election, we did a joint SIFCO-EC service for the first time. Teaching the people, getting people to understand the value of their vote, this is what voter education is about. The members of the EC should take the initiative for the next elections. And might I add, you are talking about the National Assembly elections but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a third round soon!

Do you not feel that the hierarchy of the EC has shown that they are not fully independent from the establishment?

I would not say that unless I have proof. That said, the concern I had was when Judge Renaud ordered the EC to give the opposition parties the softcopy of the voters register and they did not. That wasn't good.

And you still feel that if we go to a third round, the EC as it is, could be trusted to do its job independently?

I think the fact that Wavel Ramkalwan thanked them was a sign of the trust he had in them.

You are one of the very few people in Seychelles who represents an institution and speaks his mind. And you've said some things in the course of this interview that will not go down very well with a few people. Would it be fair to say that contrarily to others, you're not afraid of repercussions?

To be honest, I am here in Seychelles to work for the Church and to work for God. I have demonstrated my political neutrality throughout my stay in Seychelles and I am so happy that my clergy agreed that we need to be neutral in all our actions and we have demonstrated our neutrality. From what I understand however, for some politicians, being neutral means to be against them. But we are not against any political party; we are not in favour of any political party. And this is where the strength of the Church lies - in our neutrality. We will never side with anyone. But we have a duty to tell the truth.

The President knows about my neutrality, so does the Vice President. Wavel Ramkalawan also knows I am neutral, as does Patrick Pillay. In 2016, we will maintain this neutrality, we will maintain our mission to educate voters. I must say though that I have heard that even though we are committed to neutrality, some parishioners have said that Bishop is doing politics. I have heard that. If educating people means that I am doing politics then I am doing politics. But partisan politics, never! And I was so happy that the message of the Church and the message of SIFCO was well-received. I was on La Digue last week and people came up to me to ask whether I was Bishop Wong and they said "thank you for your message". The message was and remains to learn to be good voters and encouraging all parties to do what's right.

Source: Today in Seychelles

2015 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION; RAMKALAWAN ASKS COURT TO ORDER A THIRD BALLOT

A first petition contesting the election results was filed yesterday with Wavel Ramkalawan asking the Constitutional Court to declare null and void the result of the Presidential runoff and the subsequent "election" of James Michel. The Seychelles National Party (SNP) alleges that the Electoral Commission wrongly calculated the results and that there was no winner in the second round.

The Presidential candidate of the Seychelles National Party (SNP), Wavel Ramkalawan yesterday filed a first petition under Article 130 of the Constitution, contesting the results of the Presidential runoff held on 16, 17 and 18 December.

The petition filed by lawyer Bernard Georges yesterday morning, averred that the Chairman of the Electoral Commission, Hendrick Gappy was wrong to award a certificate of election to James Michel, declaring him the winner of the 2015 Presidential election, since no candidate won more than 50% of the votes in the runoff.

 The SNP is therefore asking the Court to order the Electoral Commission to hold "further ballot/s until such time as a single candidate receives more than 50% of the votes in the election".

This argument is based on the premise that the announcement of the percentage of votes allocated to contender James Michel was incorrect; therefore the certificate of election issued to Mr Michel “was erroneous, improper and illegal”.

The petition explains that based on the calculation of votes cast, Mr Michel received 49.319% and not 50.15% as stated by the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Hendrick Gappy when he proclaimed the results.

The petition says that the total votes cast were 63,893 and that the total votes cast in favour (valid votes) were 62,831 while 1062 votes were rejected. James Michel won 31,512 votes while Wavel Ramkalawan was said to have won 31,319 votes.

"The Chairman of the Electoral Commission immediately thereafter publicly announced that the petitioner had received 49.85% of the votes and the second respondent (James Michele) has scored 50.15% of the total votes cast", paragraph 14 of the petition averred.

Following this, the petition says, Mr Gappy "acting purportedly under paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 of the Constitution, presented the second respondent with a certificate of election, declaring that the second respondent was duly elected to the office of President".

But Mr Ramkalawan avers that "the said announcement was incorrect and the certificate was erroneous, improper and illegal"

 Speaking to TODAY, Mr Ramkalawan’s lawyer, Bernard Georges said that "we want the Constitutional Court to interpret clearly what the Constitution says regarding the calculation of percentage of votes in the runoff of the Presidential election”.

The issue is that the Constitution makes mention of "votes" and the Elections Act makes mention of "votes cast" and is explained further in the petition.

"Based on a calculation of the votes cast - whether rejected or not - and the figures compiled by the first respondent (the Electoral Commission) itself, (...) the second respondent (James Michel) has in fact only received 49.319% of the votes cast in the second ballot".

Mr Georges told TODAY that "we are alleging that if the percentage had been calculated correctly, none of the two candidates would have received the amount necessary to be elected President, in this case 50% plus one, therefore the elections should be declared null and void”.

The petition is asking the Court to declare that the Constitution has been contravened, to declare that James Michel has only received 49.319% of the votes, to declare null and void the certificate of election issued to James Michel by Hendrick Gappy and to order the Electoral Commission to hold further ballots until a candidate obtains more than 50% of the votes cast.

The petition which will be heard by the Constitutional Court has to be served on three respondents, namely the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, James Michel and the Attorney General.

Lawyer Bernard Georges explained the choice of respondents by saying that it was “Mr Gappy who made the mistake in the calculation”. James Michel is also a respondent as "he stands to be affected by the ruling”.

Mr Georges said he expects the court to serve the petition on the three parties today at the latest. “Naturally I do not expect them to accept the petition and they will surely prepare their defense to counter our claim”.

The timing of the case is at this point uncertain as Mr Georges explains that under the law, the respondents would need to be given time to prepare their defense. He said that it will only be then that a date will be fixed for the hearing and a panel of judges chosen to hear the petition.

“We have been informed by the Court that the case will be given due consideration and we expect it to be given priority although we cannot confirm at this point when the hearing will start”, said Mr Georges.

To note that all courts are presently in recess and will resume during the second week of January.

Mr Georges also confirmed that a second petition will be filed next week requesting that the results of the Presidential runoff be declared null and void, based on irregularities recorded on polling day. “The Election petition will have two components; firstly it will outline all the irregularities which took place and secondly it will call for a recount of the votes”, he said.

Mr Georges added that the legal team was still gathering evidence for the second petition and will be ready to file it on Monday 4 January.

Both petitions will be heard by the Constitutional Court.

Meanwhile, Wavel Ramkalawan has called on all opposition supporters to “remain calm and let justice take its course”.

Mr Ramkalawan said that the Union for Change movement will be keeping supporters updated and called on them to be ready for the hearing once the case starts “as it is not just us leaders who should be participating and following the case, but all the 31,319 persons who voted for the opposition in the runoff”.

The result of the Presidential runoff was declared in the early hours of December 19, giving SNP, 49.85% of the total votes cast and 50.15% to Parti Lepep. Mr Gappy has so far refused to comment on the allegations of error in the calculation of votes.

Source:Today in Seychelles

SEYCHELLES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DEBACLE; MAURITIAN LAWYER DEPORTED

The deportation is believed to be politically-motivated as the lawyer is friendly with colleagues working on the petition to contest the Presidential election.

A well-known Mauritian lawyer, Sanjay Bhuckory, was refused entry into Seychelles on Saturday night and deported back to Mauritius yesterday morning. This is believed to be a politically-motivated act as Mr Bhuckory, who is better known for having led Mauritius' only legal case that rendered null and void the election of a Member of the National Assembly on the basis of electoral bribery, was also here to visit lawyer friends involved in the opposition's petitions to contest the Presidential election.

Immigration authorities have confirmed the deportation of the lawyer to TODAY but have refused to say why they have refused entry to Mr Bhuckory and his two children who were made to sleep on a bench at the airport.

In an immigration decree handed to him and which the lawyer refused to sign, the reasons given for refusing entry to a citizen of neighbouring island Mauritius which is also a member of the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) were that "you have failed to comply to a lawful requirement under the Immigration Decree and you have made false representation and concealed information to an Immigration officer which is relevant for your entry in the country".

A travel agent who had arranged for Mr Bhuckory and his family's trip said she was told by the immigration officer that "the order to deport him came from above".

The travel agent said she contacted Home Affairs Minister Charles Bastienne and asked him not to involve politics in this but that "he never replied to me".

The Immigration Department said they will officially comment today, adding that Mr Bhuckory had "misled Immigration officers at the airport".

Friends of Mr Bhuckory insist that the lawyer, who was planning to spend a few days in Seychelles with his children, has nothing to hide. "Their hotel was booked, they were on a private visit. There was no reason not to allow them in".

Sources say however that people in government had caught wind of the lawyer's visit and that the decision to stop him from entering the country was already made "because they want to hinder the preparation of our petition".

"Except that a person does not need a GOP to come on holiday and that people are supposed to be free to discuss and exchange ideas with one another", the travel agent said.

Rendering an election null and void

In 2008, the Privy Council, which is the highest court of Appeal for Mauritius, upheld a Supreme Court judgment that rendered null and void the election of Ashock Jugnauth to Mauritius' National Assembly. It was a first in the country's history. Electoral bribery is rather common but it was the first time that the matter was taken to court. The plaintiff was a defeated candidate of the Labour party, Raj Ringadoo, who was represented by Sanjay Bhuckory and they sought to prove that Mr Jugnauth’s (who is the half brother of Mauritius' current Prime Minister) election was a result of benefits he gave to people in his constituency in his capacity as a Minister and were in fact acts of electoral bribery. Mr Bhuckory won the case in the Supreme Court and again before the law lords of the Privy Council and Mr Jugnauth's election was duly annulled.

Source:Today in Seychelles

BEL OMBRE SKULL; NOW WHAT?

Now that the election is over, will there be an update on the results of the DNA tests done on the skull in Mauritius?

Reliable sources have told this newspaper that the police now know the identity of the person the skull belonged to and are getting ready to send an officer to Mauritius to collect the results.

 This has not been confirmed by the Commissioner of police who nonetheless told TODAY that the "enquiry is ongoing".

This enquiry has been controversial since the very beginning. Previously the police had announced that the results had been inconclusive but that they were still awaiting the results of further tests on the samples sent to Mauritius six months ago.

The skull was officially disinterred on 16 May following claims on social media that workers of the then construction site of the H hotel in Bel Ombre had found and then reinterred a human skull, lower jaw and bullet casings.

Source:Today in Seychelles

THE LEGAL BATTLE BEGINS; 2015 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The SNP says that it will leave no stone unturned as it contests the result of the election with the support of the other members of the Union for Change.

Two days after the results of the Presidential election were proclaimed, the opposition is maintaining its stance that the process was not free and fair and will therefore contest the outcome in the Constitutional Court. The party scored 31 319 votes compared to the 31 512 for Parti Lepep, a difference of 193 votes. During a press conference on Monday, the SNP’s Presidential candidate, Wavel Ramkalawan, vouched that the opposition will leave no stone unturned in its pursuit of the truth. “We owe it to our supporters. We are not making a fuss for nothing, we want the truth”, he said. Mr Ramkalawan promised that the opposition will explore all legal avenues, both locally and internationally, to resolve the matter.

He said that the opposition does not accept the results as the election was marred by “a dirty campaign where state resources were abused and ID cards were bought to prevent voters from exercising their right and the ruling party used scaremongering tactics to influence voters into voting for them”.

He maintained that the election did not take place in “normal” circumstances: “If Mr Michel had won the election fair and square then we would not be meeting today and we would have accepted the results. This election was ours and we are not going to give in without a fight”. In fact, the SNP, in concert with the other political parties which backed it during the second round under the banner of the Union for Change, on Monday filed a petition requesting a recount of all votes cast during the runoff.

A letter to that effect was presented to the chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Hendrick Gappy, right after the results were announced. Mr Ramkalawan said a recount was needed as there were “confirmed” irregularities in three districts, “meaning voting did not go well”. He cited the example of Anse aux Pins where two extra votes were unaccounted for and at least two votes were marked with a pen instead of a marker as required by law.

He also mentioned two other incidents of irregularities in Cascade where one vote was unaccounted for and in Glacis where the station was short by one vote compared to the number of people who had voted. Mr Ramkalawan said the opposition is positive that if there is a recount more discrepancies will be uncovered. He added that if a recount proves the results proclaimed did not tally then “we hope there will be a third round or fresh elections”.

The second petition, Mr Ramkalawan said, concerns the Constitution and he questioned whether “Mr Michel won 50% plus one vote as stipulated by Schedule 3 of the Constitution”. He cautioned that people should not draw parallels with the 2011 PDM case when the party led by David Pierre won a seat in parliament after contesting the results based on valid votes cast. “The Constitution and the law make different provisions for Presidential and parliamentary elections and we should not let ourselves be confused by this”, explained Mr Ramkalawan.

He also announced that the opposition will submit an election petition which, according to the Constitution, can be filed within ten days of the election, and 14 days according to the Elections Act. “In this petition we will outline all the illegal practices that took place prior and during polling day”, he said, adding the document will contain evidence of vote buying and other illegal practices which were brought to their attention.

In the event that the petition is accepted by the court, the election will be declared null and void making way for a third round or fresh elections. Mr Ramkalawan said the election petition will seek fresh elections so that Seychellois people can “express themselves freely in a clean campaign without the illegal practices that were observed in the second round”. When asked why the party is filing so many cases, Mr Ramkalawan said the opposition is making use of all the legal options to show how serious it is about the issue.

On the issue of whether the swearing in should have taken place on Sunday Mr Ramkalawan said that although the opposition does not accept the outcome, they recognize that the Constitution states that the winner must be sworn in within 48 hours after the results have been proclaimed. Mr Ramkalawan used an example of an athlete to explain what can take place if the results are declared null and void. “When an athlete is accused of doping, his or her results are maintained until evidence is finalized and then the athlete is stripped of his or her medal. So this is the state we find ourselves in today”.

As to how long the case might last, the former presidential candidate and leader of Seychelles Party for Social Justice and Democracy, Alexia Amesbury, explained that such cases are usually fast tracked and dealt with in a swift manner. The press conference at Arpent Vert was attended by the other former Presidential candidates who backed the SNP in the runoff, namely Patrick Pillay, Alexia Amesbury, and Philippe Boullé. Also in attendance were the SNP’s Vice Presidential candidate, Roger Mancienne, Roy Fonseka and Ahmed Afif from SPSD and Lalyans Seselwa respectively, as well as representatives of the British High Commission and the American Embassy.

Source:Today in Seychelles

AN IRREGULAR AFFAIR; SEYCHELLES 2015 PRESIDENTIAL RUNOFF

Despite the fact that James Michel was sworn in as President yesterday, the battle is far from over.

By Deepa Bhookhun

Never has a Presidential election been so problematic. The international observers yesterday refused to say whether the election was free, fair and transparent, adding that they will defer the announcement of their findings until after the Constitutional Court determines whether the election is valid or not. The Union for Change is expected to petition the court today.

While the observers’ refusal to endorse the election, speaks volumes in itself, they actually went as far as to suggest that the swearing in ceremony of the new President should not have taken place until the court has validated the Electoral Commission's decision to announce James Michel the winner of the 2015 Presidential election in the early hours of Saturday.

Honourable Justice Mahapela Lehohla from the ECF-SADC said yesterday during a meeting with the press that "there should be a neutral person to assume the power of State during the time that the election is being petitioned in court. In most countries, it is the Chief Justice who assumes this responsibility".

Mr Lehohla was reacting to a question on the number of days a person has to petition the court on the validity of an election. At the moment, a person has ten days to contest.

In Seychelles however, the law makes no provision for such a scenario, making it hard to question the legality of yesterday's swearing in ceremony. The law needs to be amended to further enhance the democratic process, SADC's Honourable Fezile Bhengu said without giving any specifics.

Another issue which has cropped up threatens to complicate the matter further. Alexia Amesbury told this newspaper yesterday that the Electoral Commission has "violated the law by declaring James Michel the winner".

The lawyer's argument is that Schedule 3, section 5 of the Constitution says that “subject to paragraphs 6 and 7, a person shall not be elected to the office of President unless he has received more than fifty percent of the votes in the election and the necessary number of ballots may, subject to the election being discontinued and recommenced in accordance with an Act, be held in accordance with the direction of the Electoral Commission to achieve that result.”

Read in conjunction with section 37(1) of the Elections Act, this, members of the Union for Change say, would suggest that the Electoral Commission should have calculated the candidates' results on the number of votes cast rather than the number of valid votes. Had they done so, neither of the candidates would have been declared the winner as the latter would have needed to obtain at least 31 947 votes. James Michel totalled 31 512 votes while Wavel Ramkalawan totalled 31 319 votes.

The Elections Act Section 37(1) says: “Where on the statement of the result transmitted to the Electoral Commission in respect of a Presidential Election, no candidate receives more than fifty percent of the votes cast, the Electoral Commission shall not declare the result of the election and the provision of paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 of the Constitution and sections 17 to 36 of this Act as applicable to the election shall apply to the second ballot”.

Does this mean that the results announced early Saturday morning are not valid? Was it right to take into account only valid votes or should the EC have taken into account the number of votes cast? This matter can only be settled by the Constitutional Court.

Some lawyers argue that the matter was settled in 2011 when the Constitutional Court declared that it was the number of valid votes that had to be taken into account and not the number of votes cast but others such as Alexia Amesbury say that this interpretation only concerned the matter of proportional representation in the National Assembly and not a Presidential election.

The leader of Seychelles National Party (SNP) Wavel Ramkalawan has already announced that the results will be contested. He refused to concede defeat and yesterday the Union for Change movement announced that it will petition the court today and ask it to declare the election invalid.

The Union for Change will be contesting the results based on a number of irregularities it says it noticed during the election. Sources tell this newspaper the irregularities have to do with "election rigging as the number of votes cast did not tally with the number of people who voted, some ballot papers were marked with a pen instead of a marker and some people voted twice and the fact that the total number of votes changed after counting". There has been no official communication of the specific grounds on which the election will be contested.

The international observers' findings would have helped open the way for the challenge but yesterday's meeting with the press shows that they are being very cautious in their official remarks. Their final findings will be issued in 90 days, they announced yesterday at the meeting at Avani hotel in Barbarons.

Bishop James Wong did not take kindly to this manoeuvre and said that "90 days is too long for the country to wait for the report as people want to know whether the election was free, fair and transparent right now". He added that there were rumours that there could be riots in the country and that there is much tension in the country, something that the Seychelles Interfaith Council (SIFCO) is trying to diffuse.

Judge Bernardin Renaud who was also present at the meeting, said that while it was normal for the observer missions not to declare if the election was free and fair as the matter was subjudice, "unfortunately for the people of Seychelles, this is not good as they want answers".

Mr Renaud also questioned the use of election terminology such as "casting", "polling", "valid vote" as well as who has the authority to declare that a vote is rejected. He said that these words are being used "loosely in our Elections Act and this is serious".

The number of votes rejected totalled 1 062 while the difference in votes between the two candidates was just 193 votes.

Source: Today in Seychelles

STOP THE THIEF!

Election Act.

Schedule 3 of the Constitution.

HOW ROUND 2 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS WERE STOLEN

The scandal at Anse Aux Pins

The result with the original Anse Aux Pins result

The result after the manboulouk at Anse Aux pins

The increase from round 1 to round 2

MORGAN CORRUPTION; LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK!

The president of the Republic has always reiterated that corruption is a perception though proofs of constant corrupt practices are hurled into the public domain every day. Let us review one more case involving Minister Joel Morgan.

On the 8^th of August 2006 when Joel Morgan was Minister for land, an elaborate scam was concocted to attempt to mask this corruption. A company was created called Skyline Investments (Proprietary) Ltd with his wife as a 50 % shareholder; the other shareholder has since vanished to Africa in hiding. Two plots on Marie-Jeanne estate (PR 3256 and PR 3257), Praslin, was allocated as part of the scam. The annual rent payable is 1 Seychelles rupee for both plots on a 99 year lease; a clear case of daylight robbery of the people of Seychelles. The premium that was paid on the lease is a matter of national embarrassment.

Here is the proof Mr Le President. The people of Seychelles will judge you by your actions. Either you have lost control of your government or you are part of the corruption by pretending it does not exist! You have failed to investigate this incident when it was brought to your attention. You too, Mr President, is corrupt because of that. You must resign.

By A.Pierre

ALEXIA GERTRUDE AMESBURY ; THE UNIFYING FIGURE

A golden opportunity awaits us all, a golden day will dawn on us all, a golden era is in the making.  Many have slogged, laboured and toiled for what is to come, for what this country deserves.  We have all been pilgrims on this long journey to break from our dark past.  Some are no more with us whilst their beliefs live on.  We salute them.  We will remember them!  Some began their mission for change from when the blazing star was eclipsed.  Some started a little after.  Some well after, and some very recently.     But the purpose remains the same.  To right what was wrong and what is still wrong.   Finally, our nation have rediscovered its moral compass.

Along the journey, men showed their true colours.  Some have cheated from what they once preached.  Some have succumbed to the lure of what shines.  Some have discovered their weaknesses which they hardly thought existed within them.  Not everyone can keep faith with ideals.  Those are the ones who will never know victory, nor defeat.

But the true stalwarts plodded on, never giving up.  Stalwarts are born and not made.  And like a solo climber summiting a mountain, he/she who really qualifies to be a stalwart is truly known only by him/her. 

We have all travelled through the storm and we must focus on the future.    The past will be taught as history lessons to our children of tomorrow.  They should and must learn from that.  It's a powerful lesson that will cement how our country will be shaped for future generations to come.

Now comes the unforgiving minute.  The moment of decision.  You will arrive at your decision based on what has previously been uploaded in your hard drive.  You would have heard, seen, experienced, and most importantly, sensed.

Alexia Gertrude Amesbury has certainly demonstrated the strength of character as a person ready to take on herculean tasks.  This she accomplished six times taking President Michel's government to court, and won.  Uncompromisingly, she continued with regular court appearances during the campaign period demonstrating her unique ability to deal with numerous matters of urgency and importance.  The only politician who had to share her time between politics and service.  Her personal story makes her an indispensable leader in tackling the prevailing challenges of social justice that our country faces today.  As a leader at this crucial turning point, Alexia enjoys a lean team allowing her to build around her a cabinet of highly qualified individuals.  She owes no-one any favours.  As the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, Alexia will benefit in having close support and advice from her Vice-Presidential candidate, Roy Fonseka.  Alexia is a unifying figure, a useful ingredient in ensuring a smooth transition.  Above all, Alexia presents a team and 'A CHOICE YOU CAN TRUST.'       

We now await the final hour, for ‘Our Refreshed Seychelles’ -  ‘A Seychelles for All.’  God Bless Seychelles Our Beloved Country. 

DEAR JAMES

We are aware you have not been at your best lately but we understand. You see, Sir, we haven’t been at our best for years either because of you. We have been constantly tormented by an elevated cost of living and our land has continually been occupied by strangers. Once we had all the money and all the land; now we have neither money nor land. All have been taken away from us by you and redistributed; we never featured in the redistribution list. What a pity!

Constitution killers

We now have to squeeze for space on what is left of our beaches as we discuss the plight of our brothers and sisters sardined in overcrowded prisons. You promised our youth light but they trod the path of darkness; prostituted, drugged and drunk. You promised us freedom but mothers weep as their sons and daughters are whipped and chased because of the white powder you said you would eliminate. You guaranteed us expression but assented to laws that prevent us from being what we want to be.

We entrusted you with our parastatals but you used it to suffocate private enterprises. You have failed to exercise good governance by ensuring that the accounts of the parastatals are made public and subjected to our scrutiny. Sir, you have forgotten that we, the shareholders of Air Seychelles, Seypec, SPTC and PUC demand some respect. You pleaded us for the job and we gave it to you but you forgot that you are the employee and we are the employer.

NATION DIVIDERS

You called on us to judge you by your actions; we have. We concluded that the actions you took are detrimental to our health, communities and the nation as a whole. You have compromised our sovereignty and integrity. We have unanimously decided that you must be fired from your job. We will recruit someone who understands the job better. YOU ARE OUT!!

TOP 13 MOST INFAMOUS LIES OF THE PRESIDENT

1) 5000 houses to be built in 5 years-1000 per year, the man promised back in 2006. He lied! At that time, he held the portfolio of Finance Minister and knew that the country did not have the capital to embark on such a massive project in the space of 5 short years. To date, more than 9 years since that statement was made, even a mere 1500 houses at Perserverance have not yet been completed.

2) IMF, the monster, which will make Seychellois live “dan la mizer fernwar” is never going to be invited in Seychelles, the man promised. He even claimed in 2006, weeks before the Presidential elections, that if the opposition coalition (SNP/DP) came to power, they are the ones who will invite the IMF on Seychelles soil. He lied, of course! Just two years after winning the  election, he was the one who begged the IMF to come to save his…you know what, after he had almost singlehandedly bankrupted the nation.

3) IMF will be in Seychelles for ONLY 3 years (2009 to 2012) and then it will go back to where it came from, the man promised. He lied! Today, in 2015, IMF is still here and looks certain to be here for a very long time indeed!

4) The Seychelles rupee will never be devalued, the man promised. He lied! Today, the rupee has lost 80% to over 100% in value against the major hard currencies!

5) With the IMF assisted reform program, no worker in the civil service will lose his/her job, the man promised. He lied! Shortly afterwards, over 5000 civil service workers either lost their job or were forced to resign!

6) In an interview with Marie Claire Elizabeth on SBC, prior to the IMF intervention, the man claimed that Seychelles had paid up all its debt and owed nothing to anyone. He lied! The nation later learned that not only had our debt in the space of 4 years almost tripled, but we had been unable to fulfil our repayment obligation because the country had no money to do so.

7) The excess tax revenue derived from the increase road license of one rupee per CC will be used to repair the roads, the man promised. He lied! Because today, not only are most roads in a deplorable state, with more pot holes in them than a million colanders put together, but the excess tax revenues collected are being channelled for other purposes unrelated to road repairs!

8) GST will be in place for 2-3 years only, the man promised. He lied! Not only did GST survive for almost a decade, but was actually increased from 12% to 15%. It has now metamorphosed into VAT of 15% and obviously here to stay.

9) I will put all “Escobars”big time drug traffickers) behind bars, the man promised. He lied! Today, all the “Escobars” are free and enjoying their ill gotten gains freely and peacefully. It is even alleged that certain of them have state protection. The “escobars” business concerns keep increasing day by day and consequently their ill gotten money gets easier to launder. It sometimes baffled the imagination to see how easy it is for the “escobars” to get license and planning permission to start a new business. This is in sharp contrast to the bona fide businessmen who most of the time finds the going through SLA and planning authority a really tough road to travel, with several impediments that they have to overcome before they can start their respective business. Those that are behind bars serving time today are the small time traffickers and pushers, dubbed the “pti makanbale and pti ziblo” by a well known Catholic Priest.

10) There will be no increase in electricity and water tariffs under my charge, the man promised. He lied! Since then, there have been more increases in utility tariff than the number of times a cock crows at dawn.

11) In 2006, shortly after coming off an oil research vessel and wearing a yellow helmet, the man promised that in two short years (2008) Seychellois pockets will be filled with petro dollars. He lied of course! Not only was that promise the stupidest one ever made( Assuming that Seychelles at that time had discovered oil, which, incidentally, it has not up until now), because after  oil is found offshore, it takes up to 5 years before the product can be commercially viable. The only person or persons whose pockets are filled with dollars now are those who sucked up to wealthy Arabs, Russians and South Africans. And who have secret offshore accounts to off load all their gains into them, as a way to escape the scrutiny of the poor members of society.

12) Shares in government owned banks will be sold to the public, the man promised. He lied! To date, government is still the major shareholder in all its banks.

13) No air Seychelles employee will ever lose his/her job under my charge, the man promised. He lied! A few weeks later, close to 300 Air Seychelles employees lost their jobs.

We will not mention the funniest of them all that corruption is only a perception. There are also several other lies the man has uttered during the last eleven years. So many that he could easily be a top contender for “ The World’s Top Liar” award. 

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT JAMES MICHEL FROM A SEYCHELLOIS MOTHER.

Dear Mr President

I am tired of being informed that my son, Cyril, is being threatened in all manner of ways by persons known or unknown to you. He was exiled for fifteen years because he would have been dead had he stayed on in Seychelles. As a mother, it was the most difficult time of my life to be separated from my son but he finally came back and even though he does his best to live a normal life, it is evident that some people are intent on making his life and the life of the Lau Tee family miserable. Notwithstanding, my late husband contributed his best to this country economically but after you and others took over the country by force, his life changed for the worse following constant intimidation from the regime you are part of.

I know the pain of losing a son and I know you do as well. However, you took the responsibility to offer this nation security but failed and as a result of your failure, I lost my son. He was ruthlessly murdered a decade ago and my family still mourns his passing. The government you head has failed miserably to bring the culprits to justice; or is it because my son was a Lau Tee?

My loving son murdered and you have failed to bring the culprits to justice

I simply want to publicly inform you that should anything happen to Cyril, I will not hesitate to lay the blame on you and your government. I will do whatever it takes to defend my children and I suppose you would do the same.

A devoted Seychellois mother

Ormonde Lau-Tee (Mrs)

“MINISTER LIONNET MUST RESIGN!” INSISTS MRS AMESBURY

Seychelles Party for Social Justice & Democracy (SPSD) is asking for a full investigation into the corrupt land deal of H8822 involving Christian Lionnet and his brother that was sold for SR1. The Minister must resign with immediate effect.

Are these music studios?

Earlier this year on En Moman avek Prezidan, James Michel stated that corruption is just a perception and political propaganda.  He also asked the people of Seychelles to provide proof so he can crack down on these people. Here is the proof and here is your chance Mr President. The people of Seychelles will judge you by your actions.

The Scam

The well published land allocation policy of this government is one piece of land per person or if you have (private) land already you cannot get government land. It seems this policy went out of the window on this SR1 land scam. The brother of Minister Lionnet already had land before this transaction, namely H2684 and H8110. H8110 was sub divided to H8352 and later sold. They even attempted to mask the corruption by adding a condition that the “property shall be used solely for the purpose of a residential music studio”. The people of Seychelles do not like to be taken as fools anymore. Christian Lionnet must resign!

By A.Pierre

PRISONERS ON MARIE LOUISE CLAIM BEING THREATENED

Prisoners being detained at the prison on Marie Louise Island are claiming that they are being threatened by the authorities on the island.

This week, LSH got a call from a family member of one of the detainees saying her brother has alleged to her that he had been threatened with a pistol.

“My brother is fearful of his life and so am I”, explained the sister.

According to the sister, the issue got out of hand after her brother had inquired about the fish they are being fed because of the dead fish phenomenon currently facing the country. In a letter sent earlier this year to LSH, prisoners complained about their diet, which composed mainly of fish and conserved food.

“My brother has made his mistake and is doing his time, but I don’t see why the authorities at the prison should use their pistols to threaten his life.”

The sister told LSH that she has called the office of the Minister of Internal Affairs, Charles Bastienne, to report the incident. This was on Tuesday and she said she spoke to the secretary.

LSH has also learnt that this incident is not an isolated case and that many other prisoners are being threatened with arms.

The prisoners on Marie Louise have also complained about many issues from a lack of health officers on the island, potable water and their diet.

Prisoners on Marie Louise can only see their relatives twice a year. They are brought down to Mahé by plane.

Since its creation in 2012, the Marie Louise prison has had two heads as the first one, Ronald Ernesta, resigned earlier this year. He has been replaced by Felix Flore.

LSH sent an email to the Personal Assistant of the Minister for Internal Affairs in which Miss Beryl Pillay replied that the “content is well noted” and she “will bring the matter to the attention of Minister Bastienne and will revert in due course.”

Source: Le Seychellois Hebdo

WHO WILL RESIGN?

In a press conference held last week, Mrs Alexia Amesbury, the first female presidential candidate and lawyer gave a telling press conference late last week in which she spoke on diverse issues. Central to her discourse was the scourge of corruption. While everybody present was expecting the announcement of her running mate for the upcoming presidential elections, she was focused on ensuring that two ministers will have to resign shortly. She will provide all evidence of their corrupt practices in the coming days.

Corruption and allegations of corruption are not alien to the incumbent government though they have survived the storm thus far. Mrs Amesbury is sure, two ministers will not outlive the revelations she will make public.

In the meantime Minister Vincent Meriton’s daughter, Vladislava Vincentovna Meriton has bought land at Glacis; she is busy building. Going by her NIN number, she must have been made a citizen of Seychelles only three years ago. It is without doubt that someone high up the echelon of power has been behind the transfer because two portions of land (Parcels H10904 and H10906) had to be amalgamated into one (H10908) to suit lady Meriton. Minister Meriton, the papa of lady Meriton oversaw the whole transaction as per power of attorney vested in him by his daughter. Some people know how to get things done properly.

The PS that signed the document

While many Seychellois find it hard to buy land from government even if they have the cash, others manage to do so without much hassle. The 1851 square meters of land has been transferred for a sum well below the market value of land. Is this anomaly enough to request the resignation of Minister Meriton?

Source: Seychelles Weekly

PS BERLOUIS LOSES LAND AT LA MISERE

The Constitutional Court has ordered the Land Registrar to transfer back a plot of land sold to PS (Principal Secretary) Maryse Berlouis by the government in 2010, and has ordered the former to return the land to its rightful owner within 30 days of its retransfer.

The court made the order on Tuesday when it said the sale of the land in question was illegal and in violation of the petitioner’s right to property.

M.Berlouis

It explained that the land was sold to PS Berlouis whilst protracted negotiation was underway, meaning the government was already under obligation to return it to its former owner.

Under the constitution, more specifically Schedule 7, the government is obligated to return land to former owners, in instances where it is undeveloped or there is no plan for development.

The court concluded that in selling it to PS Berlouis five years ago, the government deliberately ignored the constitution which says land cannot be returned in two instances, when it is in the public interest, or when it is developed or there is a future plan for development.

Schedule 7 was thought up to exclusively limit the free rein the government enjoyed during one party state to acquire land.

It imposes that land acquired prior to 1993 is returned to rightful owners, or in the event this is not practical, owners are compensated for losses incurred.

The underlying principle of the Schedule is to assert that no more land is acquired by the state unless it is in the public interest, or to correct injustices of the past when those whose land was taken could not seek recourse.

In that instance the court explained that in the case of the land sold to PS Berlouis, the transfer did not convey any lawful title onto her, since the transfer was illegal to being with in the first place.

It accordingly declared the transfer null and void, noting that the court cannot rely on its own illegal act not to transfer the land back to the petitioner.

The petitioner’s claim throughout the 8-years the trial has been ongoing was that the sale was illegal since it failed to award proper regard to the country’ constitution, which says the government has a constitutional obligation to return land acquired under the one party rule to the people who held ownership of these lands prior to July of 1993.

It was argued that in awarding the land to PS Berlouis, the state rendered a favour to the PS, insisting that people of her status should not be in position to purchase land from the government.

 Furthermore it claimed that the sale placed the government in a position to later claim that it is not in a position to return the land, as it no longer held its deed.

This is exactly the position the government took in court, leading the latter to conclude that the transfer was done in bad faith.

PS Berlouis for her part claimed she was a bona-fide purchaser of the land, asserting that she paid a sum of R175,000 for the transfer.

The court however said her claim is very much in doubt, given that she was a high government official at the time of the purchase, being the Principal Secretary for Investment, Entrepreneurship, Development and Business Innovation.

It said the least the PS could do is to advance a claim through a civil suit, which anyhow cannot overturn the ruling of the Constitutional Court, for the petitioner holds the supreme rights to the land, and not her.

Speaking to LSH afterwards, a jubilant petitioner said he had waited eight years for the good news.

Source: Le Seychellois Hebdo