TRNUC hears three witnesses |27 May 2020
From left to right: Dr Ferrari (Photo: Joena Meme), Mr Morin (Photo: Joena Meme) and Mr Ciseau (Photo: Louis Toussaint)
Case 0104 of Bernard Racombo, the former police officer who claimed he was unlawfully dismissed from his job for refusing to follow political education lessons forced upon him and others by the one party state, followed by detention at the president’s order for eight months on Long Island, took precedence before the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) yesterday.
Further to the above allegations, Mr Racombo had also alleged in his evidence that while in exile in the United Kingdom (UK), working for a security firm at an airport, his employer was informed in a letter from Seychelles in 1986 that he (Mr Racombo) was a security threat and should not be employed to work at the airport. He claimed the letter was penned by former high ranking police officer, Tite Morin.
In his testimony, Mr Morin stated that as police deputy commissioner from 1985 to 2003, he wrote many letters and he could probably have written the letter in 1986 but he was almost certain he hadn’t written that particular letter.
To clarify his position against the allegation, the former deputy commissioner explained that the phrase ‘persona non grata’ used in the letter could not have come from him as it would have made him look ridiculous as it is the country of debarkation that will stipulate if someone is persona non grata or not and given the fact also that Mr Racombo was already living in Britain.
He claimed that all letters he wrote were on behalf of the police commissioner (Max Fontaine at that time) with his sign off T. Morin for the commissioner, like he usually does, and not Tite Morin (in full) as was signed in the letter.
He further claimed that it was not possible for the person who had received the letter to say that the letter was written by Tite Morin if he doesn’t know Tite Morin,” he added.
“It would be impossible for the person to identify me as Tite Morin from that letter because he would have seen only a capital T and Morin or B.M.T Morin for commissioner. So it was not possible that he could tied me to that letter,” he stated, noting that if the letter really existed it was from elsewhere that wanted to hurt Mr Racombo by using his name (Mr Morin) including involving the police.
He noted that the police letter head was easily accessible and so he refuted the allegation brought against him by Mr Racombo in connection to the letter.
In regards to if a copy of that letter could still be in police archives, he answered that he doubted it as the police at that time did not keep files on detainees.
On allegations that he was the person responsible to organise arrests pursuant to the president’s detention orders, Mr Morin, who joined the police force in 1966, stated that it is part of police duty to make arrests and at that time the warrant orders were signed by the president. He claimed that the detention forms though signed by the president were blanks and it was the commissioner of police who would fill out the names of those to be arrested.
“He could have had further discussions with the president as to who to be arrested but it was him, the commissioner, who wrote down the name of the persons to be arrested,” he said, noting that no court could overturn any arrest decision taken amid the detention powers invested in the president at that time.
Mr Morin explained that most of the arrests ordered by the state during the 1980s, of which he was part of the investigation, were on the basis of security threats to the country.
He said he knew nothing of the disappearance cases as they were not investigated.
He alleged that all the disappearances and other murder case files linked to politics were in the possession of the commissioner of police and most probably they are not in the police archives.
As an ex member of the coup d’etat and high official of the one party state, Dr Maxim Ferrari was again called by the commission to shed some more light on the context in Seychelles at the time of the coup and the idea of what was supposed to happen in the country after the coup.
In addressing Dr Ferrari, the chairperson, Gabrielle Louise McIntyre, said that the commission wanted to understand from him how the situation was, based on his previous evidence that at the time of the coup while there was the coalition government, the idea of the coup and also if the party that was not winning the elections took power by force with the aim of maybe win elections after.
In his response, Dr Ferrari claimed that the country, though independent, was indeed very deeply divided politically as the Seychelles Democratic Party (SDP) was still not happy with the independence and the Seychelles People’s United Party (SPUP) was in favour. He claimed that many people believed that Mr Rene, who had fought for independence, was the person who should have been president on June 29, 1976.
Dr Ferrari, a former minister before and after the coup, said that is was former President Albert Rene who came up with the idea of the coup and how to run the country, all by himself. He said that Mr Rene was full of mischief that he was able to play down the coup even if his coalition partner was informed of his intentions.
He noted that though he was part of the coup, he regretted to have participated in it on account of how things turned out afterwards.
He stated that looking back, he shared the idea that the SPUP would have won elections hadn’t the coup taken place as Mr Rene was becoming very popular through the work he was doing in the coalition government.
Dr Ferrari, who served for seven years as minister in the Rene government, claimed that he presumed the thought of the British supporting the SDP to win future elections prompted Mr Rene to organise the coup.
He said he learned of the idea of the coup from Mr Rene in February 1977, though he did not use the words ‘coup d’etat’ and said instead that “Mr James Mancham will not stay as president of Seychelles”.
He alleged that he was not part of the planning of the coup as he was not totally informed by Mr Rene of what was going on as compared to former president James Michel and former minister Ogilvy Berlouis among others. He claimed he was informed of the coup prior to the day itself.
The former minister stated that the spread of communism and one party rule among some African and Latin American countries could have possibly got Mr Rene to change his pattern of governing the country like he did after the coup through a system of fear and mistrust.
He further stated that though he was a supporter of the coup, he was not in favour of the one party rule and it was one among the many reasons he left government and the country.
He claimed that he had been very naïve to have trusted Mr Rene that everything was going to work well in the country after the coup.
On referring to some cases before the commission, Dr Ferrari claimed that in the Franco Piovani death at Carana Beach, Mr Rene told him that he was killed with a bullet that was not found in Seychelles. He said Mr Rene was presumably worried and was also warning him to take care as someone could be walking about with a gun that was not registered in the country.
CASE 0170: Brian Anacoura
Colonel Andre Ciseau was the last person before the commission in relation to Case 0170: Brian Anacoura, an ex soldier, under his command, who had claimed that his transfer from the Seychelles Coast Guard in the night of 2001 to the Grand Police army camp until the end of his contract, was not done as per the army transfer norms and that his move was politically motivated.
Colonel Ciseau said as the commanding officer at SCG, he received a letter of transfer from the army headquarters Bel Eau, for Mr Anacoura, along with a few other soldiers. They were to be transferred from SCG to Grand Police army camp.
He alleged that he forwarded the communication to superiors down the line for action to be taken on the decision by the Seychelles People’s Defence Forces (SPDF) to transfer Mr Anacoura and others to another unit.
“The following morning I learned that they were picked up and brought to the Bel Army headquarters prior to be transferred to Grand Police,” Mr Ciseau said.
Colonel Ciseau claimed that he did not know the reason for the transfer as these types of transfer happen regularly and was seen as normal.
He claimed that he, also, had been transferred on many occasions to other units and had never questioned the reasons and so it was deemed as not appropriate for him to question the reasons why this group of soldiers was being transferred.
He stated that the soldiers have their rights to seek explanations through a letter in relation to their transfers where they are also expected to receive either positive or negative responses.
He noted that he was not sure if the soldiers, including Mr Anacoura, did make an appeal against their transfers.
He further noted that normally in the army, deployment and re-deployment takes place at any time on any day.
Colonel Ciseau acknowledged though that transfers are sometimes also used in the army as part of disciplinary measures but he is unaware if that was the case for Mr Anacoura and others.
He also said he was not aware as to where Mr Anacoura was placed at the headquarters other than what he said in his testimony that he (Mr Anacoura) was placed in a cell.
Patrick Joubert