TRNUC hears more evidence in Marjorie Baker’s murder, Naidoo grilled |02 July 2020
The circumstances surrounding the death of popular radio presenter Marjorie Baker were the first to be heard yesterday morning by the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission.
Case 0123: Juan Salaman
Juan Salaman had brought the case to the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) so that more light would be shed on the death of his mother Marjorie Baker who was murdered on the night of September 5, 1986 at Glacis.
Altogether four witnesses were heard in open and close sessions.
According to the commission, Christopher Dubignon was the first person to have observed Ms Baker’s dead body in the car after which he had called and informed his girlfriend about it, who in turn, informed Ms Baker’s family about the incident.
Mr Dubignon stressed that he was not the person who saw the body in the car but only spotted Ms Baker’s car parked, facing towards the beach at North East Point, early that night while driving towards Victoria from Glacis in a pick-up truck. He noted that he knew her car as he was a friend of the family. He said he could not be certain if there were people in the car or not.
He added that on his way back, he spotted Ms Baker’s car with its lights flashing towards the mountain but as he approached it, whoever was driving the car made a speedy reverse, turned and drove with the lights off down the road at Carana. He stated that the kind of action could have possibly been done by a professional driver and not the accused murderer, Douglas Cedras “as having known him, he could never drive in that professional manner, even though I had never seen him at the wheel of a car,” he said.
Mr Dubignon said it was a police officer named Isnard who first saw the body in the car as his brother, who was passing by, saw him looking into the car with a flash light. He added that his brother then phoned him to recount the incident and he (Dubignon) went to the Baker’s family home to inform them about what had happened. He noted that upon reaching the family residence at Greenwich, Mont Buxton, he saw a senior army officer inside the house of Ms Baker’s sister and wondered about his presence. He said it was his girlfriend who went inside to deliver the sad news to the family and later accompanied them to the mortuary.
He claimed that from his point of view Ms Baker was sexually abused in the first place at North East Point and later stabbed to death at Carana before her body was transported to Glacis where it was found.
He claimed that upon looking at the stab wounds on Ms Baker’s body, from his point of view, the accused murderer, Mr Douglas, could not have done it.
“This was done by somebody who was used to doing this kind of atrocity,” he said, noting that she was killed because she had leaked information about the possibility of a coup to former President France Albert Rene.
With no records in a police file and court proceedings on the case, the second witness in open session on the case, former assistant police superintendent Antoine Belmont, who was in charge of the investigation, said all information and statements on the case were recorded in the police investigation diary and after court proceedings were expected to be returned into police custody.
He said he also recorded his investigation among other statements in his daily personal police notebook which he had disposed of as the original information is in the police investigation diary.
Mr Belmont who vaguely remembered the incident he investigated, said when he went to the scene, the body and other items had already been removed. He noted that he was aware that a sharp blade cutting tool was used to commit the murder following inspection of the body at the mortuary.
He stated that from what he remembers, it was Mr Cedras himself who told police officers who went to look for him, that he had killed a woman and this made him the sole suspect. He said he could not remember if there was any physical evidence among other evidence to link Mr Cedras to the murder unless he got hold of the police investigation diary to refresh his mind. He also said he could not remember if he wrote down Mr Cedras’ statement which indicated the murder was a result of an argument.
“Douglas confessed and accepted that he committed the murder,” said Mr Belmont.
He said it was a surprise to hear from the commission that a Mr Isnard was the first person to reach the scene as from what he remembered, it was a corporal with the surname Morel and police inspector Thomas Banane who has since passed away, who were the first persons on the scene.
Two other witnesses in the case gave their evidence in close sessions.
Mr Cedras was sentenced to life for the murder but was pardoned after serving seven years in prison. The commission is expected to ask for the police file to further the investigation.
CASE 094: Ramesh Naidoo
Complainant Ramesh Naidoo was called in before the commission in a grueling session to respond to allegations against him in light of evidence received as a result of investigation in his case regarding an act of arson and land compensation issues.
In setting out the gathered evidence, the chairperson of TRNUC, Gabrielle McIntyre reminded him that he had advised the commission that his conviction was orchestrated by State House and that he was never involved in setting fire with the intention to destroy the records of Krishna Mart at the Seychelles Trade Tax Department, in 1990.
She stated that from the evidence gathered from one of the many witnesses interviewed in his case, the commission was informed that he (Naidoo) was the mastermind behind the decision to enter the tax department to retrieve the tax records of Krishna Mart. She further stated that Krishna Mart had actually asked him (Naidoo) to carry out the act in which he (Naidoo) recruited a Mr Guy Charles to enter the office to destroy the file. She went on to say that he (Naidoo) promised to pay Mr Charles part of the money that Krishna Mart had agreed to pay him. She told him that it was somebody who has passed away who provided the commission with information that he was involved in the arson incident.
“All of these allegations are false. These are false allegations,” said Naidoo denying that he recruited or instructed no one to participate in the arson attempt.
The former tax officer claimed he was convicted for arson because of his intervention on tax evasion involving the importation of two Maserati cars in December 1990, of which one belonged to Mukesh Valabhji who, as the right hand man of former President Rene, orchestrated with State House for him to be convicted. He said he never had any connection with Krishna Mart.
On claims in his file that he was dismissed from his job as a result of misconduct regarding his involvement in providing false cheques for his car importation business and not as a result of flagging the under-valued Maserati cars, he said it was not the case and he had never seen the dismissal letter. He said it was an agent, Dominion Traders, which imported the cars and not him as he bought a car from them. He claimed that he was not aware that there was a report in his file that he was evading taxes through providing false cheques.
After failing to convince the commission through constant denial of evidence written in his file, TRNUC vice chairman Michael Green reminded him on two occasions of repercussions he could face for providing false information with the intention to lead the commission astray. Mr Naidoo then admitted that he did write the two false cheques but still insisted that he had nothing to do with the fire incident at the Seychelles Tax Department. He said the witnesses made false allegations.
As for the land compensation he was requesting, the commission told him to seek written permission from representatives of his family so as to continue with the case as he had no legal right on the property being investigated.
He also provided the commission with documents to investigate mismanagement of funds for the Coetivy prawn farm and misappropriation of land by Dolor Ernesta, an allegation Mr Ernesta has already refuted.
Case 005: Carlette Ball
Anne Lesperance from Praslin was a witness in Case 005: Carlette Ball concerning her husband Hassanali who disappeared on August 14, 1977, at Saint Louis.
In presenting her evidence, Mrs Lesperance who was working at the Treasury at that time, said two colleagues and herself were expected to go to a get-together at Port Launay that night. But earlier that day accompanied Carlette’s sister, Juliana, to Hassanali’s place of work at La Poudrière Road to borrow his car. She claimed that Hassanali agreed and said he will pick her (Carlette’s sister) up at St Louis at 7pm so that she will return with him to his resident at La Louise so that she could use the car to go to the event.
Mrs Lesperance, who was living at Mont Buxton at that time, said she waited in vain for her colleague friend to pick her up for the get-together. She added that it was in the afternoon of the next day that she learned of what had happened to Hassanali and understood why Juliana did not come to pick her up.
She presumed that a man she knew quite well and who was leaning on the bonnet of a green car with number plate S7745 parked close by, could have been involved in his (Hassanali’s) disappearance as he probably had heard the conversation between Hassanali and Juliana and leaked the information to those who kidnapped him.
Patrick Joubert