Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) |12 February 2020
Four witnesses and a complainant give their testimonies
Land surveyor Gerard Hoareau was among the first of four witnesses and one complainant to appear before the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) yesterday.
The commission had wanted to hear his testimony in Case 058 of Marina Pool and also Case 094 of Ramesh Naidoo in particular to address the allegation that the survey department, where he had held numerous senior positions, was stealing land through survey practices. The claims alleged that the survey department changed boundaries to accommodate development plans of the government in particular for the building of roads.
Both Mrs Pool and Mr Naidoo have alleged in their complaints late last year that their land was taken for the building of roads without any consultations.
In shedding light on the two cases, Mr Hoareau, who is now a special advisor in the Ministry of Habitat, Lands, Infrastructure and Land Transport, started off by sharing piles of documents with the commission related to the two cases, including the survey act that guides the work of the surveyors.
Case 058 – Marina Pool
Case 058 of Mrs Pool of Baie Lazare relates to land and access road issues asserted by her son, Jacques Pool, in his hearing before the commission last year that her mother had been mistreated and unfairly deprived of her land and other rights by the government due to incompetent officials in the survey department, as well as because of his mother’s political belief.
In relation to these allegations, Mr Hoareau said that the parcel of land in question was surveyed with the full knowledge of Mrs Pool, including parcels occupied by existing roads on her plot at Baie Lazare.
He further said that Mrs Pool was served with a notice of demarcation under the Land Registration Project (LRP) on November 23, 1983 thus she was aware that the boundaries of her property was going to be demarcated notably on December 6 and 7, 1983. He noted that other property owners bordering with Mrs Pool’s property also received the same notification thus it was a clear warning that surveying work was going to be done.
He claimed that on January 6, 1984, while the survey division was carrying out a detailed survey, Mrs Pool had applied to the division for her property to be sub-dived into three plots, which was done on May 13, 1985 and completed by July 9, 1985. He said he presumed that one of the two roads were already there when the first survey took place in 1983 and was part of the boundary parcel to be surveyed.
Mr Hoareau further assumed that an access footpath vanished to make way for a proper access road when Mrs Pool gave verbal permission among neighbours by allowing a Floran Payet to build a proper motorable access on her land. He noted that he was not aware if there had been negotiation with regards to the road as it was stated in the file and the survey had nothing to do with the mapping of roads but to register titles to land.
He noted that there were no objections on the boundaries by the land owners and under the systematic registration of titles exercise in Seychelles in the 1980s, they had three months to present through valid documents their claim to their land or lodged objections to the survey carried out to the Land Registration Project team. He noted that from evidence gathered in 1984, Mrs Pool knew about the grace period but did not take the opportunity to submit her claims back then. Mrs Pool is seeking for the appropriate compensation compared to what had been offered, for the portion of land on which the roads have been built.
Case 094 – Ramesh Naidoo
In addressing the complaint, Mr Hoareau noted that the real name of the person who appeared before the commission on November 8, 2019 was not Ramesh Naidoo as his real name was Ramakhrishna Ramesh Maboo Naidoo with Seychelles identity number 961-0002-6-1-80. He claimed that Mr Naidoo was never the owner of the land at Pointe Laure when the road issue started in the early 1980s as he only came in the picture in 2004. He noted that the piece of land in question was at that time in the hands of Mrs Naiken who agreed on a permission of a sign way leave with government.
He said that therefore, government was under no obligation to seek from Mr Naidoo for permission for the road to be where it is and that negotiations and consultations in respect of the road were done with the rightful owner.
He noted that it thus confirmed that government had never acquired any property from Mr Naidoo as he had claimed in relation to the road construction except for part of a property that government did acquire from a Mr Reinnes as part of an extension but was sold to an individual later.
Mr Hoareau alleged that there were records showing that Mr Naidoo never claimed for compensation for part of the road he claimed was part of his property as the owner from 2004 to 2013. He noted that the property has since 2013 not been under his name and that he has no right to ask for compensation.
He explained that the property had multiple shareholders and one shareholder, Denise Pothin, sold one-fifth of her undivided share in the property to a Mrs Kantawal Naiken on March 6, 1987, and she was part of the title deed by June 30, 1987. He stated that in July 1994, Mrs Naiken gave the authorisation to the Land Transport Division by way of a sign way leave document, granting the Ministry of Tourism and Land Transport to clear her property for the road project.
He claimed that in 2004, Mr Naidoo bought Mrs Naiken’s share of the property at Pointe Larue, where in August 2005 he submitted an application to the Planning Authority for a development that comprised shops and residential apartments. He said that his project was approved on condition that it was connected with the Public Utilities Corporation (PUC) sewage system among other related conditions with regard to the health authority and the fire service which he agreed.
Mr Hoareau said that in July 2006, the Planning Authority issued a stop notice on the development that had started as it was not being done as approved. He noted that after some changes, the development was allowed to continue along with other supplementary changes along the way. He claimed that in 2010, Mr Naidoo was given permission to open two shops that were completed and later in 2013 sold the whole property for R3 million.
Case 028 - Alain Ernesta
Senior police officer Ronny Mousbe was before the commission as a witness in relation to Case 028 of Alain Ernesta who had claimed that he (Mousbe) was the person who in 2001, took him and his audio CDs from the airport upon his return from Mauritius, to the Central Police Station and thereafter had to communicate with him (Mousbe) for the return of his CDs.
Mr Mousbe said that he was in charge of the Anti-Drug and Marine Squad (ADAMS) and his instruction from his superior (he could not remember) that day was to provide backup assistance to a group of other police officers who were conducting an investigation on some passengers at the airport and that Mr Ernesta’s name was among those listed.
He noted that Mr Ernesta was indeed in possession of the CDs in question but it was not him who took them away from him. He said that the CDs had nothing to do with his unit and it was the police officers of the Criminal Investigation Unit (CID) who took charge of Mr Ernesta and his CDs. He noted that his squad escorted Mr Ernesta to the police station and he had no knowledge as to what happened to the CDs.
Mr Mousbe noted that following the CDs being confiscated in Victoria Market which ended in chaos two weeks prior, could have motivated his superior to have his squad to provide assistance to the CID officers at the airport.
Case 0147 - Gerry Sopha
Gerry Sopha was the only complainant yesterday to complain about the killing of his brother David Sopha by the police in a house at Pointe Au Sel.
He stated that David, who was serving a fifteen year sentence in 1998 for rape and robbery, had in 1999 escaped from prison along with another prisoner. He claimed that he got a call from somebody who informed him that David and his colleague were both killed by the police following their escape from Long Island.
Mr Sopha said that upon going to verify the news at the police station in the morning, they were not given any news at to what had happened but were only told that they will get access to his body. He said they tried to look for him at the morgue but the family was prevented from verifying if his body was really in there. He claimed the family was allowed to see the body of David late at six in the evening where he witnessed roughly 11 bullets in his body. He alleged that his brother was not killed but assassinated.
He noted that nobody in the authority have ever until today approached the family to explain why they had killed his brother. He stressed that his family is willing to forgive the person or persons responsible for killing his brother but they cannot do so unless those responsible come forward and admit what they had done. He said though he was not defending or condoning what his brother had done to land him in prison on Long Island.
Mr Sopha claimed that the two guns which were said to be in the possession of the escaped prisoners were placed in the house as a set up to justify the killing. He claimed the two were shot in cold blood while they were sitting down or having a nap in a room of the unfinished house. He congratulated President Danny Faure for assenting to the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) bill.
Raymond Louise - general witness
Ex-Police Commissioner Raymond Louise appeared as a general witness to give evidence on events that happened during his time as a senior police officer. He enlightened the commission on the many incidents he had witnessed as a junior and senior officer, among other known information, and noted that he did his job according to the law irrespective of race, colour or religion and political affiliation.
He stated that during the colonial days, religion had a very big influence on the police in terms of acting according to the law but the police disintegrated after religion was sidelined during the one party state. He also said that with the introduction of the army, the police was also sidelined as the army took precedence over them.
Mr Louise noted that in his time as commissioner, there were good and bad police officers as well as good and bad judgments. He insisted that much effort should be placed on community policing based on deterrent patrol. He said he became the Commissioner of Police in 1992 and resigned in 1995. The commission is expected to call him back to finish his presentation.
Case 05 - Carlette Ball
Another ex-police officer, Solano Savy, was again before the commission as a witness in Case 05 - Carlette Ball in relation to the disappearance of her husband Hassanali at St Louis on August 13, 1977.
Commenting on the disappearance, Mr Savy said that it was him who discovered that Hassanali had disappeared, him who also picked up a bullet casing on the seat of his car presumably from an AK 47 rifle and was also the one who also discovered the blood stain on the seat of the car. He alleged that later at the scene he gave the bullet casing to a higher ranking police officer whose name he does not recall. He also claimed that it was him who wrote the report that he gave to somebody, again he does not remember who, at special branch.
Mr Savy said that coming from Beau Vallon, he was the first one alone at the scene after arriving on his motorcycle. He noted that after having observed the scene, many people later appeared. He further said that he stayed at the scene until the arrival of the dog handlers and other police officers some of whom he remembers. He said that before reaching the scene he met three army jeeps higher up and inside one of the jeeps there was a commotion.
After giving a full account like he presented in the 2019 hearing of what he observed at scene of the disappearance, he said that he jumped to the conclusion that the three jeeps were implicated but he did not attempt to try and follow them for fear of them being armed and he was not. He claimed that after presenting his report on the disappearance, he was not even approached for further statements. He noted that he will present some more evidence on the case among other cases in a closed session some other time.
While refuting some allegations against him by some witnesses who had appeared before the commission before, Mr Savy, who said he was made redundant in 1981 after twelve years on the force, claimed that he was present at the Central Police Station when Davidson Chang-Him was killed at 4.45pm on June 5, 1977 and confirmed that it was not Percy Dingwall, as he (Percy) had stated, who brought Mr Chang-Him to the hospital.
He also claimed that he was present at the scene where three boys died from the explosion of a propel grenade at the Katiolo Discotheque and noted that the army was still present at the scene where a soldier even told them that they had picked up twelve of such grenades which are used to shoot at airplanes.
Patrick Joubert
