Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission Hearing sessions resume after season break |07 January 2020

Mr Lau-Tee (Photo: Louis Toussaint)

The Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) yesterday resumed its hearing sessions related to cases of alleged human rights violations committed during the 1977 coup and the ensuing years in which Seychelles was a one-party state.

The last session was held on November 26, 2019 and the first sessions for this year at its premises at Ile Du Port will go until January 17, 2020.

Stefan Knights, appearing on behalf of Attorney General, Frank Ally, was the first witness to take the stand before the commission for this year to answer queries in regards to the Official Secret Act (state security act), in relation to government policies.

The chairperson of the commission, Gabrielle McIntyre, said the commission was seeking an explanation on the act so as to understand why it is getting some difficulty to get relevant information from witnesses and suspects coming before the commission.

Mr Knights said that the act was number 16 of 1977 and was assented to by the late President James Mancham on May 20, 1977. It became in operation on January 10, 1978. The act makes provision related to state security to deal with espionage and other activities prejudicial to the interest of the state and to provide for matters incidental thereto and connected thereto.

Mr Knights noted that the act was never amended but over the course of time, through law revision, section two of the commencement provision which stated that the act ‘shall come into operation on such date as the president hereby order appoint’, no longer appears in the current law because after the SI was drafted and signed, there was no need for the provision any longer.

He further explained that sections three and four under that act relate to liable offenses to anyone, including a commissioner in the event of communicating state secrets without authorisation, receiving state secrets without authorisation or sharing state secrets through espionage.

Mr Knights said that the penalties under the act in relation to these offences ranges between two years and fourteen years’ imprisonment.

He noted that every public officer is given notice of this law before he or she starts working for government.

When asked by Mrs McIntyre ‘what is a state secret’, Mr Knights answered: “Well, it would be something that would be prejudicial to the security of the state,” although he acknowledged that it is not defined in the act.

In relation to a person being held liable for giving out information that could be considered as state secrets before the commission, Mr Knights answered that he is in the opinion that the commission can hear state secrets but even though with immunity from the commission, a person can be prosecuted if the offices gather information in relation to what has been said before the commission, from outside.

Mr Knights suggested that to avoid prosecution in relation to giving out information prejudicial to the security of the state, it is best for the commission to advise persons coming before it to seek authorisation from the relevant government bodies as to whether or not to disclose information the commission is trying to get from them and also if the information is prejudicial, the session should be held behind closed doors. He acknowledged though that human rights violations are not prejudicial to the state.

Case 022 of Olivia Vincent in relation to the death of Simon Denousse

Ex-police officer Edwin Henriette, an explosive expert, was the next witness before the commission in the afternoon in Case 022 of Olivia Vincent in relation to the death of Simon Denousse. He also gave testimonies on the events of the coup at the Police Mobile Unit on June 5, 1977, on the death of Davidson Chang Him who died on the day of the coup and on his expertise as a ballistic expert.

Speaking on the coup, specifically about the death of Berard Jeannie, Mr Henriette said it was a planned operation and death was inevitable in this type of operation. He noted that from his experience with guns, witnesses present at the Police Mobile Unit have not been telling the truth and the only person who might have known who shot Jeannie is the deceased himself.

He also said that coup member, Francis Rachel, could have been shot by a stray bullet from the many bullets that were being fired.

On the shooting of Mr Chang Him, Mr Henriette said that he should have been protected by the police and people in charge of the coup as he was in their custody (like a prisoner of war) and should have been treated under the international convention. He further said that the person who shot Chang Him should have been arrested and prosecuted and as that didn’t happen, all those in charge of the coup and who were present that day are responsible for his death as they did not take action against the perpetrator.

In the case of Simon Denousse who was alleged to have died in an explosion along with explosive expert, South African Mike Asher, at Anse Forbans on October 19, 1982, Mr Henriette said that based on his knowledge in explosive it would have been practically impossible for the bodies to have remained intact from the force of the explosion.

He noted that from his analysis of the various testimonies, no proper investigation was held in the case for reasons yet to be known.

He said that assumption that the two persons were making a bomb should have come after an investigation was made but not on the same day.

He further said that as all events were tempered with, he presumed from his experience and without accusing anybody, that the two bodies were placed in the car after the car had been blown up.

Mr Henriette told the commission that he was not giving his final verdict on the cases he was speaking about but only helping it, through his expertise, to find some conclusions to those cases.

Disappearance of Gilbert Morgan

Via Skype, former police investigation officer, Antoine Lau-Tee, was the last person before the commission yesterday to give evidence in the cases 031/032/033/ in relation to the disappearance of Gilbert Morgan in February 1977. His testimony though had to be rescheduled for Thursday morning because of poor connection.

Two other sessions were held behind closed doors yesterday.

Patrick Joubert