TRNUC wraps up February session |15 February 2020
Clive Delorie (Photo: Jude Morel)
The Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) yesterday heard from four parties, during its 50th hearing, and final scheduled session for this month.
Attorney General (AG) Frank Ally was first to appear before the commissioners to shed light on the possible reasons there were allegedly no investigations or inquiries, and no prosecution in relation to the deaths of Davidson Chang-Him and Berard Jeannie, who were both executed on June 5, 1977, with both incidents occurring at police stations.
AG Frank Ally proceeded to detail the role of the attorney general noting that it has always functioned as the principal legal adviser to the government and that the AG’s office is the deciding body regarding prosecutions. Upon deciding whether to prosecute, the AG considers numerous factors and criteria including the police investigation reports and a final case dossier, whether the evidence produced is adequate and whether a prosecution is in the public interest among other considerations.
“In both cases, my research indicates, it is not easy to find, at the time we did not have a record system in place, but I have not seen the dossiers have been sent to the AG’s office. It could have been sent but I cannot confirm. I cannot confirm who the AG was in 1977. The question is whether the police did conduct an investigation and what kind of inquiry they did. There would at least be an accused,” he said.
“In the instance of a murder, it is necessary for an enquiry or inquest. It is probable that an investigation was carried out, although that’s my personal opinion. Maybe if there was no inquiry, there must have been a reason. Maybe the officers of the criminal investigation unit were instructed not to conduct an inquest to decide whether there was foul play,” Mr Ally stated.
The commissioners were also interested to know about the Presidential decree of October 1977 when President Albert Rene passed a decree setting up the Liberation Memorial Fund, from which the dependants and co-dependants of the three men killed during the Coup, namely, Chang-Him, Jeannie and Francis Rachel’s were to benefit from financial assistance. The complainants in both matters, Chang-Him and Jeannie, both claim to have not benefited from the fund or from the government.
AG Ally outlined the provisions of the decree as per the official documents on file noting that the provisions of the decree were fairly vague and failed to specify important information pertaining to the two matters in question. He said that the fund came into operation on December 4, 1977 and that it was to be financed through voluntary contributions, although it is not clear where the voluntary contributions would come from or whether contributions were to be deducted from the consolidated fund.
The decree also provided for the fund to be managed by a Board of Trustees, which functioned as a corporate body entity. AG Ally clarified that the law does not expressly state that the Board of Trustees would be appointed by the government or that appointments would be publicly announced.
“S4 of the law, there is a possibility it was amended in 1978 by decree 33 of 1978, again I cannot confirm, the fund was ‘to provide for the maintenance, education, benefit or advancements to such persons that the board of trustees nominate’,” he added.
No regulations were made under the Board up to 2010 when the law revision exercise was undertaken.
The commissioners noted that it is extremely difficult to acquire any records about the fund to prove the claims right or wrong leading AG Ally to advise that the commission should try to work out how much the beneficiaries should have been receiving in 1977 and make a recommendation.
“As you can see, there was a law, and the law is clear that they should have received some form of assistance, and the question is if others were assisted, how were they being assisted,” AG Ally said, proposing that the commission get into contact with others who have benefitted from the fund, determine how much they benefitted and in its final case report, propose a sum in compensation based on their findings.
AG Ally concluded his session by reminding the public of the role of the commission to handle alleged human rights violations and complaints, to provide victims with closure and to make recommendations for reparation based on evidence collected. He also urged members of the public to be respectful of the commission and whoever appears, especially on social media.
Case 0022 - Olivia Vincent relating to the death of Simon Desnousse and Mike Asher
Witness Basil Savy provided the commission, via Skype from Australia where he now resides, with evidence in relation to the deaths of Simon Desnousse and Mike Asher, the latter of whom was allegedly staying with Mr Savy on the night they lost their lives. Mr Savy recalled the evening of October 19, 1982, when he, Mike and his 6-year-old son, Steven, left his residence at La Misère in his blue Honda around 5.30pm to drop off the housekeeper at her home at Le Niole. On their way back, he claims that Mike requested to make a phone call and they stopped at Marine Charter, Victoria to place the call and then proceeded on their way back towards his house, but they were stopped by four military personnel in an army truck, taken out of the car and forced into the back of the army truck, at the junction located at the Tracking Station.
He suspects that they were followed on the journey to Le Niole and back and that their phone calls may have possibly been tapped, as is alleged by other complainants and witnesses that have appeared before the commission.
From the tracking station, Mr Savy remembers one of the army personnel, Claude Marie, who he alleges was former President Rene’s bodyguard, stating that they have to stop over at State House, where they waited for half an hour before finally leaving on another 20 minute drive, to an unknown location, which he suspects may have been Sans Soucis. Upon arriving at the mysterious location, which he described as a big concrete building measuring 30 feet by 30 feet, he came face to face with army personnel Marengo and a few other military men he presumes were not Seychellois.
“While we were waiting, Marengo came to me and pointed his revolver at my face and said “do you know what that means” and I replied yes! Are you going to use it? Go Ahead! And he said he replied, ‘I will soon do it, you are a trouble maker’,” he recounted.
“I waited for a while and Desnousse came in handcuffed accompanied by two army personnel. We sat down and waited for a short while until the President came in, ordered Mike and Desnousse to be taken away to a room and I was taken into another. He came into the room and questioned me as to what Mike is doing in Seychelles and I told him Mike and his girlfriend came for a short holiday. He also asked me of Mike’s intention in the Seychelles and I replied that I did not know,” Mr Savy said.
He continued on to note that the President left the room briefly, and returned shortly after and instructed him to go home and that his son and car are outside. He was also instructed to report to State House at 10am the following day and made it home with his son by 1am where he informed Mike’s girlfriend that he had been arrested and was in detention. He claims she left to stay in a hotel the following day until she eventually left the country.
“I went to State House the following day and he told me not to get involved in politics anymore, as there would be consequences and to not tell anyone anything that happened, not even my family. I asked about Mike and Desnousse and he told me they had an accident and the police will investigate the matter,” he said.
Asked about his relationship with Mike, Mr Savy revealed to the commission that they had met three years prior at the Marine Charter and had become friends then. He also told the commission that he was not aware of Mike’s activities or planned activities against the regime or former President Rene’s government, although he himself was involved in separate political activities.
“I was not aware of his activities, but I knew he was a friend of Gerard Hoareau because when I was in London, Gerard told me that Mike and his girlfriend would be coming to Seychelles for holiday. Yes, I was involved in political activities. I was involved in 412 in London but not in the same room as the other person. I only met Gerard at the bar at the hotel. I never spoke to anybody at all, because Rene meant what he said,” Mr Savy continued, noting that he never spoke of the experience, even to his closest family members.
Mr Savy told the commission that he was not aware of the relationship between Desnousse and Mike and that he did not believe that Mike and Desnousse had indeed died in an accident. He also told the commission that he was informed that there would be no funeral for the two deceased and that his wife was later stopped by army personnel from visiting their graves at Mont Fleuri.
Recalling his own experience before he left for Australia, Mr Savy told the commission how he left the country in 1986, noting that he was followed and spied upon for years, from 1982 to 1986 and on one occasion had a gun pointed at his face through the window of the car.
The commission thanked Mr Savy for his critical evidence urging the officials present on the night to come forward and give evidence in the matter.
Michael Pillay
Michael Pillay appeared in open session before the commission in response to two questions posed to him, before setting out his own complaint. The commission asked Mr Pillay to appear based on requests by the family members in relation to the cases of Gilbert Morgan and Carlette Ball. In both instances, the families claim that after the disappearance of their loved ones, they were approached by Mr Pillay who appeared to have information which he was withholding from them.
Mr Pillay started off by stating that he knew Mr Morgan professionally as Mr Morgan contracted him for carpentry work since he owned a carpentry business in Mont Fleuri. He also told the commission that he did not know Hassanali, Mrs Ball’s partner, at the time of his disappearance.
Asked about his role and political affiliation, Mr Pillay said that he and his father were strong supporters of SPUP and that they even produced banners for the party but that he washed his hands after the Coup.
Setting out his own complaint, Mr Pillay noted that he had protested against the Coup publicly on the street and in September 1977, he was detained and hospitalised and that two doctors repeatedly administered injections in both of his knees, without any explanations.
“I had the courage to say on the streets publicly that we won’t accept a Coup d’état and that made me an enemy to the state. I went alone. The third day after I was injected, someone escorted me to England and I remained there for three months before returning here on December 31, 1977,” he said.
“A few days later, I wasn’t feeling well again and my father took me to Dr Maxime Ferrari, and he questioned why I returned to Seychelles to which I replied that Seychelles is my home,” Mr Pillay said.
Mr Pillay told the commission of an instance when Mr Mancham visited his carpentry workshop one weekend as they were undertaking work on the airport which was under construction at the time, and a newspaper article was published the following week in which Mr Mancham congratulated Mr Pillay and his father for the formidable work, proposing the visit may have been a further reason to think he was an enemy to the state.
After he felt forced to shut down the workshop at Mont Fleuri where he worked with his father and his two brothers. He opened a second company six months later (either 1979 or 1980) and took up an office at Kingsgate House and work was booming, he told the commission.
“They came with a warrant for me, requesting me alone to appear at the station. This was December 26, 1980. I was at a dance with my wife, another fellow and his wife above Pirates Arms and around 8pm, suited, I had paid R300 to get in, and on arriving I saw several officers, who had come to arrest me. They took me and I remained for 6 days in detention at the Central Police Station,” Mr Pillay recounted.
He went on to tell the commission how during that time he proposed leaving the country for England again but was told by an officer that he would have to pay R150,000 if he was to leave the country. On the sixth day, he was transported in a Land Rover to Anse Royale, where he was rushed and injected in both sides of his body by two officers before waking up the next day in a small locked cell. He claims one of his friends was also being detained at ‘Lazil’ for a period, where he himself was also detained for almost three or four months, causing him to lose his contracts and his business and his house at La Misère.
Mr Pillay recalls offering a ride to a friend one day who helped him to make his way to Canada in 1981 after he sold all that were left of his possessions to finance air fares for himself, his wife and their four children at the time. The family were granted political asylum in Canada shortly after their arrival.
“I left the country with $400 in my pocket and a few clothes. There is not a job I have not done in Canada, from cleaning toilets, being a bin man, unloading trucks but I managed to save some money,” he said, noting that he spent 22 years in Canada, before finally returning 8 years ago.
Mr Pillay provided the commissioner with numerous names of doctors who treated him, individuals who witnessed his arrest and others who are instrumental to his case.
Case 0045 - Clive Delorie
Clive Delorie,the appointed executer to his father’s estate, also appeared before the commission to file a complaint on behalf of his father, Robert Georges Delorie. He started off by noting that his father passed away in 1989, although he was only appointed in 2016, for reasons he proceeded to set out before the commission.
Detailing his father’s background, he noted numerous business enterprises and interests which his father was involved in including tobacco farming on his property at Bel Ombre before he was approached by Mr Mancham to become involved with politics. He told the commission of his father’s appointment as a minister in the years before the Coup (around 1970s). He claims his father too was in London at the time of the Coup, and that he and his colleagues were given an ultimatum to either return or remain in England, and his father chose to return.
Upon returning, his father was instructed to go and live on Bird island, a property which Mr Delorie claims his father owned and that his father remained out of politics out of fear for losing his life.
Detailing the exact claims in his complaint, Mr Delorie referred to a property at Bel Ombre, for which a promise of sale was signed between his father and two other parties, noting some inaccuracies in the documentation and clauses in the documentation pertaining to the land, which was also at some point sold to Archipel Promotion Establishments by Claude Jules Grand Jean, a sale which was forfeited by the government after the Coup, in August 1979, contrary to the two-year clause within the contract. He told the commission that they had left the country after the Coup. The document dated August 1979 provides the reason for the forfeiture as an “unlawful transaction”, although Mr Delorie suspects that the forfeiture was a ploy on account that both Mr Grand Jean and the owner of Archipel Promotion Establishments, were both good friends of former President James Mancham. The property is, he claims located where H Hotel is situated and the opposite side of the road. He is claiming the two half-acre plots stated to be in the reserves as per the promise of sale documents.
Mr Delorie also outlined his other claims pertaining to the sale of the Island of Providence on August 15, 1980 by a man he identified as Brooks, to President Rene to the Republic of Seychelles. He claims the payments were made by instalments and brought the commissioners’ attention to the economic activities which his father had on the island and the export prospects that were available. He also claims that the island remained abandoned until recent years.
“Like I said Madam, it was a sale but my father was not desirable, he had no choice,” he said.
Mr Delorie claims that the government forced private businesses to use the 5th June vessel, under a nationalised transportation system to the outer islands and which placed immense pressure on private island owners to pay the fee, as the fee for 5th June on each trip was R25,000.
His father, he claims, owned a share (an estimated 22 percent share) of Providence Fishing Limited, in which he invested R200,000 of the total R900,000 to acquire the island. The company is thought to have had 13 shareholders, all Seychellois nationals and employed 30 workers on the island.
“My father, he was somewhat trying to protect something and in doing that, he basically took everything he had to his name at the time. Because there was this immense pressure and we’ve heard how people were fearful when they had more than one property,” Mr Delorie added, noting several other properties, at Glacis, and in town, that his father sold desperately except for Bird Island, the only property in his name after the Coup.
He is claiming the property at Bel Ombre, the island of Providence as well as compensation for the losses incurred by his father.
Laura Pillay
