The Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission |11 October 2019
Members of the commission
More complainants, suspects and witnesses appear before commission
The Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission yesterday continued to hear cases of human rights violations and other forms of abuse.
Case: 0046 Max Racombo: complainant
In the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission hearing session yesterday morning, 68-year- old Max Racombo said he was seeking compensation from government for being unlawfully arrested and put in detention and for loss of income as a result of being dismissed from his job and being refused employment in government.
Mr Racombo also wanted to know why he was arrested and why he had to go through such an ordeal.
He said he was arrested on November 15, 1979 at his work place at the Planning Authority, based then at Unity House, and he was brought to the Central Police Station and latter transferred to the Union Vale Prison, which he understood, was at the pleasure of President France Albert Rene.
He was imprisoned for eight and a half months at the Union Vale Prison including one week in solitary confinement during the interrogation period with the police namely with the then commissioner James Pillay.
Mr Racombo said he was detained along with several other people. He noted that he does not recall of anybody being beaten up but the food after two weeks got very bad.
Mr Racombo, who was a popular sportsman at that time, said he presumed he was arrested because of his association with certain groups of people, among whom his friend the late Gerard Hoareau.
He explained to the commission that his arrest might have come following his presence in a meeting, held in 1979 at the Pirates Arms Hotel, by a group of sportsmen who were against the regionalisation of sports in the country.
The commission told Mr Racombo that his complaints will be looked into.
Case 0015: Antoine Ally
Dr Jude Gedeon appeared before the commission as witness in the case of Antoine Ally who alleged that he had been victimised by the Ministry of Health over a sustained period of time. In his complaint, Mr Ally had identified Dr Gedeon as the authorising officer who in 2006 approved his application for a scholarship overseas related to dentistry and later upon winning the scholarship, Dr Gedeon again wrote to the Ministry of Education, responsible for scholarships, to cancel the approved scholarship, citing that Mr Ally was a negative person.
Mr Gedeon, as the principal secretary from 2006-2007, said that it was not part of his duties to approve applications for scholarships and he did not do so in this case. He explained that the only letter he wrote to the Ministry of Education was a letter of recommendation. He noted that upon talks with Mr Ally, who had to abandon his studies in Turkey for “security reasons”, he recommended a letter sent on July 3, 2007 to the principal secretary for Education, for Mr Ally, among other young applicants who met the criteria to be awarded with scholarships for training in medical care.
Dr Gedeon said that the PS for Education at that time had informed him that she had received a call from the director of dental services indicating that it was not proper to send somebody who was not working with the health ministry on training while there were other candidates working for the ministry and were on the waiting list for scholarships.
Mr Gedeon said he informed the PS on the possibility of including Mr Ally on the priority list with those that were already on the waiting list but he was told he had to write another letter to explain why Mr Ally’s application for scholarship had to be cancelled. The letter was written on August 2, 2007 and Dr Gedeon said that he mentioned that training for dentists remains a priority for the health department and added that training should be given to applicants with long service and proven track record of good attitude and excellence performance.
He said he wrote the letter after having talked with the PS, the director of dental services and also upon looking into the personal file of Mr Ally which contained rejections by the Ministry of Health for his re-employment along with negative reports. Dr Gedeon said he never wrote any negative comments on Mr Ally in the letter sent to the Ministry of Education other than presenting the facts that were in his personal file.
The chairperson of the commission, Gabrielle Louise MacIntyre, said that things had not been fair for Mr Ally as he was not given the opportunity to answer to the negative reports in his file, something which he was also not even aware of their existence and which had resulted in him being rejected for re-employment and being refused a scholarship.
The matter is still under investigation by the commission.
Case 002: Dorothy Chang-Him
Reddy Kandassamy was mentioned by Guy Monthy, the son of Davidson Chang-Him, as the person who grabbed him when he tried to run towards the police station when his father was shot. Concerning the events that day, Mr Kandassamy told the commission that he saw the incident as he was standing at Continental Store, opposite of the Central Police Station, and it was true that he held the boy back and informed him that his father had been shot dead.
He said he advised Monthy to go home to his mother, which he did, and after a short while, he (Kandassamy) also left the place and went back to his shop on Hangard Street.
He noted that though a curfew was in place, he was able to walk the streets as he was a supporter of the Seychelles People’s United Party (SPUP) and he was in town just to see what was happening.
He said there were three men, one by the name of Regis Robert, who escorted Mr Chang-Him to the police station where he was handed over to Philip D’Offay, who was waiting at the gate with his gun in hand. Mr Kandassamy said that Mr D’Offay walked Mr Chang-Him inside in front of him and then he shot him in the back. He also testified that he saw France Albert Rene and Dr Maxime Ferarri at the police station.
Case007: Jourdan Nibourette
Jourdan Nibourette, who declined to come as witness in the first case hearing of Anglain Labiche who alleged he was confined in a cube cell at the Exile army camp, appeared before the commission yesterday. He said he was aware of those 4x4 jail structures on the farm at the Exile army camp but he knew nothing of Mr Labiche being kept in one of those cells. He further said he was not present at that time Labiche was supposedly confined as he was posted at the Bel Eau army camp at that time.
Case 006: Paul Michaud
Paul Michaud was back before the commission for the continuation of his case of wrongful acquisition of his mother’s land where the family is seeking compensation they feel they deserve.
He was notified by the commission, through information gathered through files from Patrick Lablache, that the land was acquired in the national interest and that the value of compensation was fair.
On the part of the commission, Darrel Green said from his own research he came across documents from the deputy secretary general of the Seychelles People’s Progressive Front (SPPF), James Alix Michel, to the then Minister for Land, Jacques Hodoul, recommending that land owned by several people, including Mr Michaud’s mother, is acquired to build community centres and offices for SPPF.
Mr Green also read out another letter sent by Mr Michel to Mr Hodoul on the bonding agreement of student Roland Michaud who was granted permission by government to further his studies in the UK for two and a half years, noting that Danielle Michaud, the guarantor, had informed the authority that Roland will not be returning to fulfill his bonding agreement and thus agreed to pay the bond by monthly installments which were not acceptable. Instead, government opted to acquire Mrs Michaud’s land to cover the cost of Roland’s training, and this was effected on July 15, 1988.
Mr Michaud said that he did some research of his own and found out that his mother was threatened to sign the paper for the sale of the land and when the government failed to buy the land from her it decided to acquire it. He said his mother told him she was given seven days to sign the paper or else the government would contact the British government to have Roland deported.
He noted that even though in a meeting with Willy Confait his mother offered to pay R1500 as monthly installment for repayment of the bond, it was not accepted as the decision had been taken to acquire the land.
As the case continues, Mrs MacIntyre said the commission is watching and analysing carefully before taking any actions and decisions.
Case0050: Jessy Laporte: complainant
Jessy Laporte was before the commission yesterday to complain about the wrongful detention of her husband, Noel Laporte, and also the loss of earning from the sale of her property which was undervalued from her proposed sale price which she had to sell under duress because the family was preparing to go into exile in 1981. She noted that all of these events have impacted negatively on her family.
Mrs Laporte said she thinks all this trauma must have contributed to her husband now living with Alzheimer’s.
She said it all started with the anti-NYS demonstration where a government car which her husband was driving was burned down by demonstrators and possibly he could have been accused of complicity. He was arrested at his home in Greenwich and detained for three months at the Union Vale prison.
Mrs Laporte said that she went to see Ogilvy Berlouis, who was the Minister for Defence, who told her that her husband was a threat to the country and should leave the country upon his release from prison as his safety was not guaranteed. Upon his release he was dismissed from work.
She noted that people who tried to help her husband through employment were also threatened and he had no option but to go into exile in England. The entire family followed later after she was offered under duress less than R5000 for a plot of land she had no option but to sell to government as it was mortgaged.
She also alleged the government claimed that she owed tax as she was renting her house which went vacant after the foreign tenants were made to leave the country. Mrs Laporte said because of this, when she came back to visit family members, she was threatened that if she didn’t pay up she would not be able to leave the country again.
Mrs Laporte is seeking from government reparation of the damage caused to her family and for the return of the property tax that was imposed on her which she said was done maliciously as it was baseless.
She noted that one of her daughters will also come to testify in front of the commission.
Case 005: Lina Bonnelame
Lina Bonnelame was the witness called to answer questions in the case of the disappearance of Hassanali. The case alleges that she was seen in St Louis in a car with binoculars and walkie-talkie spying on Hassanali. Miss Bonnelame, aged 63 years old, said she had no knowledge of going into the area of Hassanali’s residence and had never held a walkie-talkie in her life. She said she does not even understand why her name was mentioned in the case.
Ms Bonnelame though acknowledged that she did see an empty car on St Louis road when she was going up to her friend’s house at Beau Vallon.
She noted though that she was in the people’s militia and her group was based at Plaisance. Their job was to guard designated places and to protect the country, even though with guns without bullets, on the order of the army.
Ms Bonnelame called on those who know of this incident to come forward and tell the true story so that her name can be cleared.
Case 0095 Dobin Samson
Dobin Samson was the last person called before the commission as a suspect in relation to the case of Philip D’Offay De Rieux who alleged to have been victimised at Anse Royale by the people’s militia that Samson was in charge of.
Mr D’Offay De Rieux had claimed that he reported those incidents of victimization to Mr Samson but he didn’t care.
Mr Samson said he knew Mr D’Offay De Rieux very well and he would like the man to clarify the date of the incident and the date he reported the incident to him.
He noted that in those days it was automatic for district branch chairmen to be responsible for the people’s militia in the district and he was an elected member for seven consecutive years. As one part of his job was to meet people in his office, he said he never recalled Mr D’Offay De Rieux, a resident of the district, coming to his office to make any complaint concerning victimisation by the people’s militia.
Mr Samson noted that he did recall Mr D’offay De Rieux being placed in custody for a period of time for reasons unknown to him. Mr Samson categorically denied the allegations made by Mr D’Offay De Rieux against him.
