TRNUC hears murder and land acquisition issues |01 July 2020
Livette Hermitte was the only complainant in the 81st hearing of the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) yesterday in relation to her son, Ricky Hermitte, a former soldier who was killed on October19, 2006 at Kan Tobruk, Sans Souci.
In setting out her complaint in Case 090, Livette Hermitte said that she wanted to know why her son was killed and who did it. She alleged that the police never carried out an investigation in the murder of her son and they never came to talk to her about the incident. She claimed that she once saw an empty file in relation to the incident, on the desk of the police officer who was supposed to be investigating the incident and whom she had gone to see. She claimed that her son was not staying at her residence but rather at Roche Caiman at the time he was stabbed to death.
Mrs Hermitte added that it was her sister who phoned her about the incident. She claimed that her son, who was a ‘taksi pirat’ driver, was killed while taking somebody to ‘Kan Tobruk’. She believed he was framed by the known passenger who was later found dead in the river running alongside the post office in Victoria, sometime after Ricky’s death. She added she learned that a car, with people inside, was waiting in the area where Ricky was stabbed.
She said although she learned that her 27-year-old son was under investigation by the police for criminal activities, he was not a violent person. She stated that her son never told her of his secrets or activities he was involved in but he once told her to go and speak with a high ranking army officer to inform him that his life outside of the army was in danger. She claimed though that she suspected his son was involved in something, involving people in state security, which led to his death.
Mrs Hermitte claimed that though she understands the idea behind the function of the commission, in relation to reconciliation, she is not ready to reconcile with the person who killed her son. She claimed that the doctor who attended to her son told her that he was stabbed by a professional.
“Until today, I am completely in total darkness as to why my son was killed,” Mrs Hermitte said, noting that his son should have been apprehended and charged if he had done something wrong and not be killed.
On behalf of her son, she also apologised to any one that he may have hurt or offended in any way.
Land acquisition issues
The special advisor in the Ministry of Habitat, Infrastructure and Land Transport, Patrick Lablache, also appeared before the commission as a witness in relation to three cases involving land issues.
Case 0193: Ian Delorie
Ian Delorie had alleged that on September 3, 1983, the State unlawfully acquired land (parcel J740) belonging to his grandfather, Joseph Maxim Delorie, on political grounds. He had further alleged that his grandfather, in 1993, sought for the return of his land which was refused. He said he was instead offered an inadequate compensation of R1.5 million of which the first installment was paid in 1994 with the rest payable quarterly over the following three years. He had also said that by the time his grandfather received the compensation, which he also claimed his grandfather had accepted under duress, he (Maxim) was 90 years old.
Mr Lablache said that from what he knew about the case, the land, situated at Beau Bel, was legitimately acquired in the national interest for agricultural purposes and that he was not in a position to determine if the acquisition was politically motivated. He said that Mr Delorie was informed by government in May 1983 on its intention to acquire the property, measuring 94,000 square metres. He further said that there was an agreement between government and Mr Delorie allowing him to retain his house with a surrounding 6000 square metres of land.
He acknowledged that Mr Delorie, through his lawyer, made several attempts for the land to be returned to him or for more adequate compensation. He said that on December 20, 1994, Mr Delorie, through his then lawyer, Philippe Boulle, accepted the government’s offer of R1.5 million as compensation from the R2 million originally requested. He stated that he received R300,000 as a first installment and the rest was to be made payable quarterly over the following three years.
Mr Lablache claimed that Mr Delorie had also requested for two portions of land to be returned to him of which only one portion was returned to him on January 26, 1994 followed with R400,000 as increase for installment quarterly payments for three years. He noted that the portion of land was later transferred to his daughter on his (Maxim’s) request in May 1994.
He acknowledged that some compulsorily acquired land by government that have remain undeveloped were returned to their owners but he presumed it was difficult in cases like Mr Delorie’s for government to return those properties as it had invested in their re-development as per its development plan and therefore opted to give out compensation.
Case 009: Jimmy Zatte
In part of his complaint before the commission, Jimmy Zatte had claimed that government unlawfully acquired his property, parcels V4731 and V4732 on December 30, 1985 for which an inadequate compensation was also offered. He had further claimed that his mother had a mortgaged of R88,000 on the property, holding three unusable and one usable houses and the compensation received did not even cover the mortgage.
Mr Lablache said the property was acquired in the national interest with the sole purpose of rebuilding the four houses for the benefit of the tenants. He claimed Mr Zatte was not against the acquisition but only wanted as part of the deal to retain part of a property with the five-bedroom house for his personal use. He said that in March 1989, Mr Zatte was offered R67,000, along with the five- bedroom house and parcel V4731 in addition to one year claim to review the acquisition from June 21, 1993 to June 21, 1994. He said that in 1992 Mr Zatte sold the two plots of land allocated to him and was further given R200,000 by government in December 2004 even though he had sold the two plots to private individuals. He further said that Mr Zatte’s mother was also paid R88,000 as mortgage.
In conclusion, Mr Lablache said that as far as the government is concerned, the case is closed and has no merit as all obligations and engagements have been honoured in regards to the acquisition which was not objected. He claimed that based on the price of land at that time, Mr Zatte received a reasonable compensation, amounting to R265,000, plus the return of two plots of land.
“I think he was fairly treated,” Mr Lablache concluded.
Case 051: Adeline family
The Adeline family had claimed that their mother, under duress, had to sell off a large part of the family property at Anse Kerlan, Praslin, on July 3, 1990, for an unfair value. They alleged that the acquisition was a form of revenge by the state against their father who did not support the government in power.
They had further alleged that the property had not been used for agricultural purposes, the justification used to acquire the land, as the best part of the land is being occupied by foreigners in the form of a guest house with the rest as a golf course and staff quarters for a five-star hotel.
Mr Lablache said that the property was not acquired but was bought from the owner at that time (a Mrs Jumeau) for state farming purposes. He said that through the negotiation in July 1979, Mrs Jumeau agreed to sell all of her property but excluding her residence and immediate surroundings as well as a family burial ground. He said government bought the property on July 2, 1980 for R385,000. He noted that government developed a state farm on the property at that time.
He stated that Mrs Jumeau requested for a review of the sale of the property on July 20, 1993 to which the government did not reply and which followed by another request in 1996, on the same issue by her son Jack Adeline asking for a compromise on the purchase where part of the sold property be returned to the family or some kind of compensation be paid.
Mr Lablache noted that according to the law, neither Mrs Jumeau nor her son were entitled to ask for the purchase to be reviewed as the land had been bought and had not been compulsorily acquired. He noted that the price paid for the property was fair as it was the price of land per square metre at that time.
As for the golf course, Mr Lablache said that government had leased the property with the five-star hotel for 60 years in which 31% includes part of the property bought from Mrs Jumeau.
Case 0232: Rene Quilindo
Desire Payet was asked by the commission to appear as a witness in relation to the detention of persons after the coup d’etat of 1977. He was identified by Rene Quilindo as the CID police officer who was involved in the detention operations at the Central Police Station at that time.
In giving his evidence, Mr Payet, who acknowledged that he was indeed a CID officer from September 1977 to July 1982, said he was not involved in any detention operations of persons, directly or indirectly, in relation to the coup of 1977. He further acknowledged that he witnessed people being detained at the police station.
Patrick Joubert
