More complainants and witnesses appear before the TRNUC |29 May 2020

Annette Henriette and Harianna Labrosse (Photo: Louis Toussaint)

At the start of its session yesterday morning, the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) heard two complainants in relation to Case 0333: Robin Henriette, who was killed on January 12, 2005 on his small plantation at Port Glaud.

His sister, Annette Henriette and companion Harianna Labrosse gave the commissioners an overview of his life and an account of the incident which cost him his life. Born on July 16, 1979, Mr Henriette was the youngest child in a family of seven and was living with Ms Labrosse along with two of his own and one adopted children.

Ms Labrosse claimed that people in army uniforms came at her house in Foret Noire, Port Glaud, late in the night of January 9, 2005, in search of her companion, Robin. She said that they broke down the door and searched the house all over. She noted that at the time, her three children in the house had woken up and were terrified.

She alleged that the men were under the influence of alcohol and during the search they also took her bottle of Irish Cream liquor. She said at one point they started to fire guns everywhere in rapid fire and she heard sounds of “we’ve got him. Follow the blood stains” (nou’n bez li, sivre latras disan). She noted that Robin was indeed in the house but he went through the front door upon hearing heavy barking from the dogs outside, thus they did not see him leave as they came through the kitchen door. She claimed that during the search she was also threatened with a gun by one of the men in uniform, which she was able to identify.

Ms Labrosse explained that the following day she went to see the Commissioner of Police, Andre Kilindo, who informed her that her companion was involved in a robbery on January 8, 2005 at the St Anne Resort and Spa, on St Anne Island, against a Chinese delegation, and the police were looking for him. She said that upon returning home, she told Robin of her conversation with the police commissioner and he denied that he was involved in any robbery. She noted though that she encouraged her companion to surrender to the police to clear his name, but he told her if he did so, they would kill him.

She further noted that the police had on many occasions come to their home to look for Robin and would sometimes lock him up on suspicions that he was involved in robberies. She claimed that he had never been charged with robbery incidents. She alleged that she had no knowledge if Robin, who was 25 years old at that time, had friends who were involved in criminal activities, as he was always working on his small plantation, noting that she did not suspect that he was a thief either.

Ms Henriette said that on January 11, 2005, she and her mother went to the army headquarters, Bel Eau to complain and the high ranking officer they met told them that former President James Michel, who was on overseas mission, had requested that Robin be apprehended by the time he returned. She stated that her mother assured the officer that she will make him surrender.

She said that they met with Robin the same day and arranged to accompany him to surrender to the police the following day (January 12, 2005) but that didn’t happen because he was killed early that morning (January 12, 2005). She alleged that it was three men who were involved in the shooting of his brother as they were identified by one of her brothers, Nelson, who went on the scene upon hearing the gun shots.

Ms Labrosse stated that from what she saw at the mortuary, Robin was shot three times, one on each leg and one in the stomach. She further stated that from her opinion, her brother was first shot in the leg to prevent him from running and she wondered why they had to also shoot him in the stomach. She alleged that they were prevented to see the body until on the Friday. She claimed the autopsy report did not mention the shots in the legs.

“Somebody told us that she heard Robin shouting ‘enough’ after the first sounds of gun fire which was followed by another sound, which suggested he was first shot in the leg and later in the stomach,” Ms Labrosse said.

They both claimed that they were not aware if there was ever an investigation in the case and that Robin was killed on purpose as he could have been apprehended.

“If they say he was involved in the robbery and was guilty, they should have apprehended him and let him face justice,” Ms Henriette said.

Though the law enforcement authority admitted liability, she alleged the family was awarded R152,500 as compensation, far below the requested amount.

To seek redress, they said that they want to meet and hear from the three people involved in the shooting as to why they did what they did. As they have no death certificate, among other articles related to the death of Robin, in their possession, the commission informed them that they only have a death certificate but with no cause of death.

Witness Paul Chow sheds more light on events surrounding the coup d’etat

Former politician Paul Chow was again before the commission to share information he knew at the time of the coup d’etat of June 5, 1977, mostly related to evidence that former President James Mancham wanted to stay as president for life, including delaying elections which is said to be the reason that prompted others to plot the coup and supported the coup.

Mr Chow said that the argument that the country was divided at that time, to me is red herring. “If they say we were divided, the UK is divided. Why isn’t there a coup in the UK? America is divided. We had different political parties, at least two political parties contesting election on a regular basis. So if you say this is division it is just normal situations in a democratic society.”

“With regard to Mr Mancham’s wanting to remain president for life, the coup d’etat itself shows that it wasn’t true because then the result of the coup d’etat showed that we were going to get a president for life because there were no fair elections. It was sham elections,” Mr Chow said.

He noted that if the argument was true, it would have been echoed in the first place before the coup and not after the coup which to him was an excuse.

“If that was the case, Mr Rene could have left the coalition and stand for free election scheduled in the constitution for November 1979. But he did his election in June 1979,” he said, noting that the coalition existed in 1975.

Mr Chow claimed that Mr Mancham did tell him that as the coalition was working and the economy was on track, he would suggest to Mr Rene, who was the chief minister, to leave things as they were and that he would support him to win the presidency in future election.

“Mr Mancham was not against independence. He wanted to get the country to be developed first and then to seek independence,” he stated, noting that he was for free enterprise and the best for the country through investments.

He alleged that Mr Mancham also told him that he did talk to Mr Rene on sticking with the coalition system through election for another five years, just to see the country develop further and after, either to continue or his party will support him (Rene) through non contesting the next election for him to be president (rotating every five years) which Mr Rene accepted though he was for the first past the post system. He stated that the plan never saw the light of day due to the quickly organised coup. He noted that in the 1974 election, Seychelles Democratic Party (SDP) of Mr Mancham took 13 out of the 15 seats in the National Assembly.

Mr Chow claimed that the coalition, in February 1977, had a five-year development plan which was under the responsibility of Mr Rene as prime minister. He said the plan also included a National Youth Service (NYS) organisation for young secondary students who could not make it to higher education. He noted that the NYS idea was even before the coup and Mr Rene just changed its principles.

He stated that there was a lot of development in the country prior to the coup and though a bachelor, it was not true that Mr Mancham was only a playboy as he was very serious in his work.

“His heart was with the people of Seychelles. He was an island boy and his style of looking at things was different,” Mr Chow said, noting that Mr Mancham was born from one of the richest families on the island. He alleged that other than Tanzania, who was fully and physically engaged in the coup, France as well as Britain, to a certain extent, also supported the coup in Seychelles.

Mr Chow claimed that the visit by Mr Rene in Tanzania in early 1977 without the knowledge of Mr Mancham, was part of the organisation of the coup from which guns entered the country through a set of furniture. He said Mr Rene’s visit in Tanzania was followed by military training for members of the coup.

As regards to the mercenary attack in 1981, Mr Chow said that the idea of mercenary coming to Seychelles was through an encounter with a friend (a Mr Frichot) who introduced him with his South African neighbour who happened to be Mike Hoare, a reputed mercenary. He claimed that although Mr Mancham knew that a group of Seychellois, including himself (Mr Chow), was planning a mercenary attack on Seychelles, he was not in favour of using mercenary to remove Mr Rene other than seeking help from friendly countries.

He claimed that it was during the Commonwealth meeting in Harare, Zimbabwe in 1991 that Mr Rene was pressured to re-introduce multi-party politics in Seychelles.

Case 080: José St Ange

Brigitte Payet called on the commission on behalf of his father, 81-year-old businessman and owner of La Digue Island lodge, Gregoire Payet, to answer implications raised from the evidence in Case 080, José St Ange, who had claimed on Wednesday this week that Mr Payet had benefited, at the detriment of his father, Karl St Ange, from the sale of his hotel (Cabanes Des Anges) in 1983 through his friendship with the late former President Albert Rene.

In setting the record straight, Ms Payet refuted all allegations brought against her father and noted that her father was not a friend of Mr Rene but was one of his slaves.

“You cannot call this friendship when you just come and use him the way you want. He was more like a slave,” she said, noting that though, not wanting to talk bad about Mr Rene, her father was always under stress and panic when he learned that Mr Rene was coming to La Digue. She claimed that her father was also one of the victims of Mr Rene.

Ms Payet claimed that her father does not owe Mr St Ange and his family any land or money, other than the banks and maybe some other people, and that he should take the issue up with the Ministry of Land Use and Habitat and not with him (Mr Payet). She further claimed that Cabanes Des Anges, which to her was very difficult for her father to run, was dumped on him to operate by Mr Rene. Cabanes Des Anges was next to Mr Payet’s hotel, the La Digue Island Lodge. She noted that La Digue Island Lodge was called Gregoire Island Lodge and it was Mr Rene who changed the name without her father being informed as he (Mr Rene) wanted to give the impression that the hotel belonged to the L’Union Estate Company Ltd.

She claimed that only after so many years of leasing the hotel, amid huge investments, that her father bought the hotel followed by proposition by government to sell it.

“My father had nothing to do with circumstances related to acquiring Cabanes Des Anges. It was not my father who told Mr Rene to acquire Cabanes Des Anges or to close it down and he also was not afraid of competition like it has been said,” Ms Payet added, noting that mostly all those who used to work with her father now owns shops or guest houses on the island.

“It is thanks to my father’s contribution that they have been able to develop their potentials and move forward,” she said, noting that Mr St Ange must have come to the commission as a form of revenge against her father.

Ms Payet stated that if he (Mr St Ange) claimed that the property was unlawfully acquired why hasn’t he taken the government to court, and more over, why had he not asked his brother(Alain St Ange) who was a minister and also a good friend of the family, to ask government for compensation for the property?

She further stated that she would like Mr St Ange to come back to the commission to retrack all allegations and to apologise to Mr Payet while her family will see if it will take legal action against him for bringing private matters before the commission. She said that she will come back in closed session as a complainant to explain how her father was also victimised by the state.

Case 0170: Brian Anacoura

Former high ranking army officer, Brigadier Leopold Payet and the chief of defence forces, Colonel Clifford Roseline, were before the commission as witnesses in relation to Case 0170: Brian Anacoura who had claimed they were responsible for getting him removed, without his consent, from his post at the Seychelles Coast Guard (SCG) in the middle of the night at the time of the presidential election in 2001 and brought to the army headquarters at Bel Eau, prior to being transferred to the Grand Police army camp until the end of his contract.

Former lance corporal Anacoura had also alleged that Mr Payet had told him and the other soldiers in the group that he had been instructed to guard them in a cell and if President Albert Rene loses the election, “something would happen to them”, among other harsh treatments he would have to endure while at Grand Police so that he resigns from the army.

Mr Payet, who was the chief of staff of defence forces at the time, said that he never saw Mr Anacoura and the six other soldiers in the group that night at army headquarters and so he never talked to them also.

He claimed he just received a direct order from the commander in chief, the late former President Albert Rene, to transfer them to the Grand Police army camp as effect from December 18, 2001 and that he did not know on what grounds.

Asked about whether it was the norm for a president to request the transfer of soldiers, Mr Payet that the request was the first of its kind. He claimed that it was the norm in the army for soldiers to be re-deployed to other units on any day and at any time. He said that soldiers had the possibility to appeal against their transfers. He stated that from what he knew, the army during the multi-party era was not affiliated to any party and the soldiers were free to affiliate themselves to any political party.

The former brigadier claimed that he was not aware that soldiers were being forced to vote for such and such a political party and he had never asked any soldiers, including Mr Anacoura, to vote for any political party in particular or its candidate. He claimed that he was not aware of the kind of treatment Mr Anacoura went through at the Grand Police army camp. He acknowledged though that the transfer norm was not respected if, like Mr Anacoura has claimed, he was transferred without a uniform.

For his part, the chief of defence forces, Colonel Roseline, said that working in the personnel office at the headquarters, he received the posting order in December 2001, signed by the then chief of staff, Colonel Payet and he executed the order.

Colonel Roseline, who was a lieutenant colonel at that time, noted that he did not remember if the soldiers were transferred at night or during the day but they were transferred to Grand Police. He also claimed that posting order is current and normal in the defence forces on a 24 hour basis. He stated that on record on August 12, 2002, Mr Anacoura held discussions on his terms and conditions in the army with Mr Payet, in his presence as he was taking notes, following the attention of a referred letter he had written to President Rene.

He acknowledged that at a certain period in the army, the soldiers were introduced to political education and there was political interference and political manifestation in the army but it is no longer the case.

“Since I’ve been at the head in 2019, I have made sure that there is no politics in the army,” he said.

Patrick Joubert