Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission |28 May 2020
More light shed on property acquisition, assassination cases
The Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) heard a first complainant since resuming its hearing session on Monday following closure in Mid-March 2020 due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
In setting out his complaint, 63-year-old José St Ange (Case 080) said he wanted to seek redress to injustice done by the Albert Rene government to his father, Karl St Ange, who fell out with them during the one party state. This is through the return of his property on La Digue that the government acquired in 1983.
He claimed that his late father, who was a friend of Mr Rene who later included him (Mr St Ange) as a minister in his cabinet two years after the coup d’etat, further to him resigning in November 1982, was deprived of his hotel (Cabanes Des Anges) on La Digue, through acquisition by government. He also claimed that his father was also not compensated upon resigning as a minister.
José St Ange, representing the heirs, stated that in 1983, President Albert Rene informed his father that all hotels on La Digue will be government-owned and as a result his hotel will be acquired with no option for negotiation. He said his father was given R1,554,260.90 as compensation in 1983, payable over five years, for the acquisition of the hotel.
He noted that after twelve months, no other hotels on La Digue were acquired and on June 5, 1984, government sold his father’s hotel to another company, the L’Union Estate Company Ltd, represented by the late Guy Morel, for R2,336,892. He alleged that on July 16, 1987 and September 7, 1987, the company then leased the hotel to Gregoire Payet, owner of La Digue Island Lodge and good friend and confidant of President Rene. He said the rent was for R360,000 per annum for twelve years.
Mr St Ange further said that Mr Payet’s company returned the property back to L’Union Estate Company Ltd, followed by re-acquiring it on lease for seventy years on November 7, 1991 for R96,000 annual rent and further to a R120,000 rent per annum for the following ten years among other terms and conditions. He stated that he has no information of the current rent or if the rent is still being paid.
Mr St Ange said allegations that former President Rene had shares, formally or in-formally, in Mr Payet’s company bring into question whether that was not a ruse to acquire the hotel for personal gain or to help a friend acquire a hotel for cheap rent with an added bonus of eliminating competition.
He remarked that there was no justification for the hotel to be taken by government and that the property should be returned to the St Ange family. He also demanded that future rental payments on the lease be paid to the heirs of Karl St Ange.
José St Ange, who was in England at the time of the acquisition of the 7369 square metre beach front property, said, “What we are seeking is the transfer of LD332 to the estate of Karl St Ange to be redistributed among his heirs and for current lease arrangements over LD332 to be transferred to the estate of Karl St Ange for all future rentals to be distributed among his heirs.”
Case 006: Paul Michaud
Philippe Michaud was called by the commission to give his version of a complaint laid out by his brother Paul Michaud, in September 2019, in case 080, on events that led to the acquisition of a plot of land by government, owned by the family.
The property is located at Mont Fleuri, where the International School parking is now located. Paul had stated in setting out his complaint last year, that “it was a clearly planned, malicious and vile act” and that their mother had signed the acquisition agreement under duress.
As one of the heirs of the property, Philippe said that though she advised her mother against signing of the acquisition letter, she did so because she was under a lot of stress following a threat that government would get the British government to expel his younger brother, Roland, back to Seychelles at a time when he was in his final stages of his exams.
The property was part of a bonded guarantee between their mother and the government for the medical scholarship of Roland who was studying medicine in the United Kingdom (UK). Paul had claimed that it was upon his brother’s willingness to extend his stay in the UK for a few more years that government stepped in to acquire the land. It was acquire in the national interest.
Philippe Michaud, on his part, claimed the strong threat on the part of government made her mother very worried that she signed the acquisition though she had verbally agreed to pay, by monthly instalments, the dues owed, which government had refused so as to forge ahead with the land acquisition.
“I saw some of the letters that my brother gave me and it was obvious that government was not so much interested in the financial compensation but was really interested in getting that land for the party,” he said.
He stated that it was crucial to her mother that her son (Roland) sit for his final exam of his seven-year medical studies and she did what she did for that purpose though she did not have the legal right. As the property belonged to the whole family, he acknowledged, from a note found in the file, that he was not in favour of having his share of the property to be used to pay for his brother’s education. He claimed that it was not fair on him as there was an option, among other options, to pay for his brother’s studies which the government had refused just to get hold of the land.
In his complaint last year, Paul alleged that the property stayed in government hands and remained undeveloped until 1991, when it was subdivided into two plots V7021 and V7022. He said that plot V7022 was then sold to the International School for R10,000 and the other plot remained fallow until 1996 when the SPPF party, led by former President Albert Rene, bought V7021 from the government for the sum of R150,000. It was further subdivided into five smaller plots which they rented out until 2016, when questions were raised about a plot which forms part of the subdivisions, V12256, and it was sold back to the government for R250,000.
Case 0147: Gerry Sopha
Andre Dugasse was before the commission as witness in Case 0147: Gerry Sopha, in relation to the death of his brother, David Sopha, in 1999.
Gerry Sopha, who also accompanied Mr Dugasse at the hearing yesterday, had complained before the commission in February 2020 that his brother, David, was assassinated by the police in a house at Pointe Au Sel in 1999. David was serving a 15-year sentence in 1998 for rape and robbery and had in 1999 escaped from Long Island Prison, along with another prisoner, Rival Dugasse.
According to Gerry Sopha in his complaint, it was Andre Dugasse who informed high ranking police officer Ronny Mousbe on the location of David and Rival. He claimed that the two fugitives were shot multiple times while sleeping after being on the run for two days.
In his testimony, Andre Dugasse acknowledged that he did inform Mr Mousbe, who was based at the New Port, on their whereabout thinking that they were going to be arrested and returned to prison and not to be shot and killed. He remarked that somebody told him that his brother was looking for him and he went at the location in a house under construction at Point Au Sel to meet him.
“My brother and his colleague did not have any arms with them and looking at their conditions I decided that it was better that I informed the police on their whereabout so that they could be arrested and brought back to prison to continue with their sentences,” he said, noting that he did try to get them to surrender but they refused.
Andre Dugasse stated that the two fugitives did not communicate with him about anything other than they were looking for some clothes to wear. He said he learned through one of Rival’s friend that they were killed while at the Anse Royal police station. He noted that it was the police who came to fetch and brought him to the Anse Royal Police Station where he gave Mr Mousbe the location of their whereabout. He noted that Mr Mousbe was in the presence of other police officers and twenty or so heavily armed soldiers but there were no prison officers.
He also said that Mr Mousbe assured his mother that the police was going to capture the fugitives but only to learn later that her son was killed. He claimed that his brother was tortured with cigarette butts among other injuries before his body was riddled with bullets. He also claimed that the two were unarmed and the weapons found at the scene were placed there to give the impression they were armed and it was through retaliating that they were killed.
“In my opinion, Mr Mousbe did not want to only capture them, he wanted them killed,” he said.
As he was present in the public gallery, Gerry Sopha, was called to the stand by commissioner Bishop James Wong to answer if he mounted his own investigation into if the two were killed on site, based on the fact that people heard firing shots and given the amount of bullets claimed to have been used or if they were killed somewhere else.
Gerry Sopha said he never went on the scene of the incident but he has heard several versions from people, including a taxi driver who told him that on that day there was a heavy army presence in the area before the two were killed and he did hear firing shots.
“So I believe they were shot on site,” Gerry Sopha said, noting he also learned that some people seeking redress might come forward to confess. He also presented the commission with names he had gathered from his own investigation in connection with the death of the two prisoners.
The commission is calling on anybody, including those responsible, to come forward so that the family can seek redress and close the case.
Patrick Joubert
