TRNUC hears more evidence in the death of Denousse and Asher |07 July 2020

Christopher Dubignon was back before the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission yesterday in open session in Case 022 – Olivia Vincent in relation to the death of her brother Simon Denousse who was killed on October, 1982, in a car explosion at Anse Forbans, along with a South African bomb expert Mike Hasher.

In setting out his evidence, Mr Dubignon said it was an army personnel he knew very well and who has passed away, who one night in Glacis told him the whole story surrounding the killing of Denousse and Asher. Mr Dubignon also said his late brother in law was also present but he was sitting away from them while he and the army officer were having their conversation.

He said the army personnel from the commandos unit at l’Exile army camp and who was allegedly very high on drugs, told him that he was among a group of soldiers who picked up Denousse and Asher in an army jeep at Fairview at La Misère, handcuffed and gagged them and thereafter carried them to an old house at Sans Soucis. He alleged that former President France Albert Rene and all the high ranking coup army officers, including those who have passed away, were present at the old house.

Mr Dubignon added that Mr Rene and Mr Denousse had a heated conversation which did not end well upon which he (Denousse) and Asher were physically abused by the army officers present. He further added that the two were later taken to Anse Forbans where they were allegedly killed by Philip D’Offay and their bodies placed in the car that was set on fire followed by an explosion.

He also made reference that somebody (he did not want to mention) well placed in government had also told him (Dubignon) that a priest had told him (the person who is well placed in government) that Mr D’Offay had confessed to all his crimes.

At that instant the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) chairperson Gabrielle Mclntyre launched an appeal to that person in government to come forward and shed light on the crimes confessed by Mr D’Offay.

Earlier, the legal advisor to government, Attorney General Frank Ally was afforded the right by the commission to reply on behalf of government to allegations made against the state by Lewis Betsy. He (Betsy) had stated in his case that after the coup d’Etat of June 5, 1977, he was unlawfully detained, unlawfully dismissed from work, denied the right to employment based on security clearance, forced into exile and his property unfairly repossessed.

Ms McIntyre had made it clear that it was the commission that requested in January 2020 for Mr Ally to appear before the commission to which he responded in a letter sent to the commission in June 2020. She noted that the commission had considered his response to be important for the government’s public record.

In responding to the allegations, Mr Ally explained that he felt that there is no necessity for him to appear before the commission to answer allegations made against the government as he had already explained in a letter sent to the commission that it should rather gather, collate, and analyse all relevant information and evidence before it from alleged suspects or perpetrators for the commission to formulate its own decision.

“In my capacity as the attorney general, the principal legal advisor to government and also with the responsibility to make public criminal prosecutions, I am not in a position to respond to every allegation made against the government, by each and everyone as there is continuity in terms of responsibility of that government as a republic,” said Mr Ally.

“I feel that the commission should identify relevant people involved who would be able to answer questions in relation to allegations made,” he said, noting that it forms part of the commission’s powers to bring in people and to question them, while also having the power to go very deep in any investigation.

He further said that the law does not make provision for him, as the principal legal advisor to government, to answer to every petition made against the government. He explained that all the ministries administer their own set of laws and regulations, drafted by the Attorney General’s office, further to approval by the National Assembly and by the Cabinet of Ministers, and therefore it is relevant for people in those ministries, departments or agencies to answer to allegations made against the government.

“In the case of Mr Betsy, the commission should have contextualised his complaints. When complains are contextualised, you will know exactly who the person or persons to be questioned in relation to allegations brought forward,” Mr Ally said, noting that the presidential decree signed in regards to arrests of persons made in the past was legal as it was in the law.

He said that former President France Albert Rene had simply legalised into law some decisions which offended the human rights of other people and now the question is for the commission to find out if the decision, taken under that law, violated human rights.

Mr Ally also took the opportunity to further explain the Seychelles People’s Defence Forces’ (SPDF) decision to seek the decision of the court on whether it was appropriate for the commission to investigate the disappearance of two young soldiers –Alberto Antat and Rodney Payet – on Assomption island on Monday October 8, 2018. He noted that it is not the intention of the SPDF through government to prevent the TRNUC to carry out the investigation but only to avoid interference with a public enquiry to be held soon.

Though he said that he was not the person to answer to petitions against the government, Mr Ally agreed to assist the commission with his legal expertise when matters arise.

National Assembly member Simon Gill was before the commission to provide evidence concerning general political education of persons with regards to socialism, during the one party state, especially in the army and in the police force.

Mr Gill acknowledged that he was among persons who taught political education in the country. He said he started to follow politics at the age of 13 years old in the old days of rivalry between the Democratic Party (DP) and the Seychelles People’s United Party (SPUP).

He added that he joined the SPUP based on its principles to eliminate exploitation, eliminate poverty and land distribution among others. He claimed his family at that time was poor and they were living a life of hardship.

But due to time constraint following a long background on the difficult life that he and his family led, Honorable Gill was not able to continue with his presentation on political education in the country as the next witness in another case was on time and ready to give his evidence.

Honorable Gill is expected to be back during another hearing session for an in-depth analysis of the political evolution of Seychelles and his teaching of political education which started in 1982 with the military.

Three other hearing sessions in the afternoon were held behind closed door.