Follow us on:

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube

Domestic

TRNUC seeks clarifications on land policies and acquisitions, SMB’s role to other traders |12 June 2020

The Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission on Wednesday heard from a number of witnesses, two in close sessions and a further three in public sessions.

Witness Patrick Lablache was called before the commission again in relation to a number of cases – 035: Jules Stravens, Case 042: Julitta Evans, Case 240: Rudolph Stravens – who according to their complaint claim that their late father Nicholas Stravens transferred land comprised in parcels S2183 and C1752 to the government of Seychelles under duress, that an open market sale was denied and that the sums of money paid by the government for these plots was a gross undervaluation of their true worth at the time.

Mr Lablache, a former principal secretary (PS) for habitat, development and planning, was also expected to provide information in relation to Case 116, in which complainant Antonio Savy claims that his property, V2825, was unjustly acquired in the national interest on August 9, 1985, for inadequate compensation and thereafter sold to the Seychelles Marketing Board (SMB) for R1, and then later sold by SMB for R200,000 to then secretary to former President Albert Rene.

As Mr Lablache was unprepared for both above-mentioned cases, chairperson of the commission Gabrielle Louise McIntyre inquired about what the policy was pertaining to land at the time that he was the PS, as it would seem that everyone was eligible for a plot of land, but yet many persons had their land taken away from them in the national or public interest, often under the instructions of former President Albert Rene, who according to allegations used acquisitions as a means of enriching his friends.

According to Mr Lablache, during his time there was never any policy stipulating that every citizen should own a piece of land, nor is there any policy to restrict citizens to one plot of land, at least until the Third Republic when the policy was drafted, on account of the shortage of land available.

“When the government started the land bank project, I remember it was around 1990 and certain land was developed in order to create, rather than have people propose particular plots, the decision was taken to build the land bank. We started the project and a component of the project was the tender for some plots which we thought were of higher value on account that infrastructure would be costly,” Mr Lablache stated, noting about 30 plots at Sorento, Glacis, North East Point and Anse Royale for which the public tender was held, and the proceeds used to subsidise projects for other buyers.

Mr Lablache also revealed that in 2008, with the economic recession, government reduced investment in land bank projects, on account of the lack of revenue, going further to claim that it costs around R250,000 to service a plot.

“In my experience, the two times I have been PS, I have never considered someone’s skin colour, who they are and who they support. If the person deserves and has applied, they would get it. Many people have been able to access land, I would say at least 15,000 or more,” Mr Lablache stated.

He also spoke of the government’s social housing policy, noting the number of projects materialised thus far, and that some categories of persons, even if assisted with land, will be unable to afford to construct a dwelling. Mr Lablache later stated that 90 percent of Seychellois cannot afford to build a house on their own and the majority seek financing from the bank to do so.

With regard to whether certain individuals have been favoured by the system, or have somehow benefitted unjustly and acquired a whopping amount of land, Mr Lablache stated that he is unaware of any specific case or persons who benefitted and proceeded to explain how the system was intended to work.

Mr Lablache then provided the commission with evidence pertaining to Case 098 in which the complainant is François Pierre in a close session as per the request of the complainant.

Chairperson McIntyre also called for persons who committed human rights violations to come forward to provide closure to the people, to themselves and to give a full and frank disclosure of events, noting that the commission can only achieve its objectives with their cooperation, also highlighting the amnesty procedure.

 

Case 100: Soona OliajiMukesh Valabhji addresses SMB policies and claims that SMB deliberately destroyed her business, Temooljee

The second witness to provide the commission with information was Mukesh Valabhji who outlined the policy of the Seychelles Marketing Board (SMB) and how it operated in providing its services to other traders. Mr Valabhji was requested to appear after it was alleged by Soona Oliaji that SMB played a key role in destroying her business.

Mr Valabhji explained that SMB was established by the SMB Act in 1984, and that former President Albert Rene, also Minister for Finance at the time, acted as chairperson of the council which managed SMB. He revealed that he headed the imports section and proceeded to denounce the claims made by Mrs Oliaji.

“Mrs Oliaji alleges that the first item to be monopolised was milk, and this too is not true. The first milk item that was categorised as an essential item was condensed milk, as everyone knows and this became a monopoly. A few years later, the Ministry of Health wanted to ban the importation of condensed milk to reduce consumption, but we had no alternative. So SMB was mandated by government, to find an alternative milk product and it was then that SMB established a factory to manufacture liquid milk, which did not require refrigeration.

“The only product which affected Mrs Oliaji, was Nestle powdered milk. Other items were not imported by her. And what Mrs Oliaji didn’t set out when she was here is that when powdered milk became a monopoly, she continued to get her commission through Nestle, and was still making money through it even if SMB was the importer, since she was the agent. And this, as was explained by Nestle to us, if we were to get importation rights, she would have to be paid a commission and it continued,” Mr Valabhji stated.

 

Case 0170: Brian Anacoura – Edward Anacoura exercises right of reply in relation to brother’s case

Also in the afternoon session was Edward Anacoura who appeared before the commission at his own request to exercise his right to reply on evidence given by other witnesses, following his initial appearance on May 29, in relation to the case of his brother Brian Anacoura.

The case relates to the transfer of soldiers to Grand Police, of which his brother Brian was one of his two brothers transferred.

Mr Anacoura refuted all allegations by the former chief of operations in the Seychelles People’s Defence Forces (SPDF), Robert Ernesta, picking apart claims made the former high-ranking official, also providing the commission with information about the chain of command in the military.

 

Laura Pillay

 

 

More news