Police malpractice dominates hearing number 86 |09 July 2020

Attorney-at-law Bernard Georges

Flaws and malicious acts of the police during the one party era was the highlights of hearing number 86 of the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission yesterday.

Attorney-at-law Bernard Georges was a witness in cases 0265 John Both (drug planting) and 0125 John Dookley (unlawful arrest), while former senior police officer Tite Morin also gave information in case 0125, along with cases 0271 Ayub Suleman and 0301 Patrick Lablache.

Other witnesses before the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) yesterday were ex-militia René Dubel (case 232 René Quilindo), attorney-at-law Phillip Boullé (case 0100 Soona Oliaji) and complainant Andre Hoareau (case 0240).

Case 0265: John Both

In his complaint before the commission, John Both stated that the police planted drugs on his person and Bernard Georges represented him during the court proceedings.

In his complaint, Mr Both stated that Mr Georges told him that the judge hearing his case would be unable to assist him as the case was being judged by State House.

Mr Both further claimed that during the time following the 1977 coup, it was common practice for the police to pant drugs on people who opposed the ruling party.

Mr Georges said he remembers the case while the details are very vague as it was a long time ago amongst many other cases.

He explained that he has no record as at that time he was the director of a law centre and upon leaving the firm to set up his own private practice he left all the case files behind.

Assisting the commission from memory only Mr Georges described the case as being ‘very sketchy’ and remembered that what the defence took was that the drugs had been planted, while the rest remained extremely vague.

What he might have told his client, or what he probably did tell him was that they will run the defence, but at the end of the day, the court having to choose between Mr Both’s testimony and that of a police officer, it would likely to choose the latter.

Therefore his chances of succeeding on defence of planting were extremely slim as the tendency of the magistrate was to side with the law officer.

Mr Georges noted that this was exactly the kind of advice he repeated many times to many other clients during those years.

He further added that cases of planting were not unknown at that time and that they were an easy way of ensuring that persons who opposed the regime were dealt with legally and that Mr Both would have fallen into that category.

Mr Georges also said he will reappear before the commission in a future matter which will throw considerable light on the allegations made by Mr Both.

He acknowledged that when Mr Both said that it was a practice at the time to have drugs planted on the opponents of the regime in order to silence them, his statement was very real.

He however explained that whenever you have a drug-planting allegation, you must start off on the basis that the drugs were found in the possession of the accused, and this, he said, curtails your room to manoeuvre considerably.

“You have to accept that the drugs were in the possession of the accused and then take the very slim chance that you have of running a defence that it was drug-planting, knowing full well that you have an uphill struggle to make that defence,” explained Mr Georges who further added that it rarely if ever happened.

He also stated that in many cases that he defended, the police would approach a suspect and immediately asked what have they dropped on the floor, before picking up something which had, or had not been dropped on the floor by the suspect.

Again, Mr Georges noted that it was not unknown for the police to have resorted to those tactics.

Case 0125: John Dookley

In his complaint, Mr Dookley stated that he was unlawfully arrested for unlawful assembly on September 30, 1984.

He claimed that it was a case of mistaken identity while attending the Regatta at Beau Vallon beach where he was approached by a police officer who told him that he had been instructed to arrest him.

Mr Dookley, along with 40 others, was accused of being part of an unlawful assembly in Victoria earlier.

Mr Georges explained that the whole trial was based on identification testimony, principally the testimony of Andre Quilindo who later rose to the rank of police commissioner.

Mr Georges noted that it was clear that Mr Quilindo placed some people who were not there at the scene, while accusing others of doing things they were not doing.

The trial lasted several weeks and again, the court sided with the official witnesses instead of the accused persons who were all convicted and fined.

Mr Georges again noted that it is clear a number of people and probably Mr Dookley were not there, but were roped in as they were known opponents of the regime and it was a good opportunity to warn them of the dangers of opposing the government.

In his evidence, Mr Morin said he had a feeling that Mr Dookley was not lying about his position regarding the assembly and that he was really not involved.

He explained that after talking to Mr Dookley, he brought the issue in front of assistant commissioner Max Fontaine who told him that there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Dookley was part of the gathering.

Mr Morin explained that he never knew what sort of evidence the police had against Mr Dookley, since he did not ask as he was not in a position to do so.

Case 232 filed by René Quilindo

Rene Dubel appeared as a witness in case 232 filed by René Quilindo as being someone involved in the shooting of Joyce Quilindo.

The initial complaint stated that Dobin Samson, along with two other militias were involved in the shooting which the former described as an accident, before Mr Dubel and Serge Marguerite were taken to the police station.

Now 76 years old, Mr Dubel said he recalls the incident and he was working as a militia on that particular day even if he does not remember the exact date, month or year.

He claimed that he was not at the shooting site.

Mr Dubel explained that he was on stand-by at the militia base next to the Anse Royale police station when he heard a gunshot and he immediately headed towards the direction of the sound while he fired a warning shot in the air.

On reaching the old social centre, he saw Mr Samson, Mr Marguerite and Joachim Louis-Marie.

Mr Dubel said it was only after going back to the militia base that he learned about someone being shot. He explained that he was even placed in custody for missing one bullet in his magazine.

Case 0100: Soona Oliaji

The third witness to appear before the commission yesterday was Phillip Boullé who testified in case 0100 filed by Soona Oliaji.

As part of her complaints, Mrs Oliaji talked about the deliberate destruction of her business.

In her evidence, Erica Naidoo, an employee of Mrs Oliaji, claimed that the latter received bills of entry for the Seychelles Marketing Board (SMB) which showed that they were selling goods above the price control by using inflated invoices.

The matter was brought to Mr Boullé as they wanted legal proceedings to be instituted against price control as the SMB was overcharging people.

When it came to actually instituting the proceedings, Mr Boullé advised them not to do so which resulted into victimisation and harassment from price control.

His initial plan was to investigate the SMB, including prices, shipping and insurance cost and also the origin of the basic commodities which were being monopolised at that time.

Alternative sources for the commodities were also part of the exercises, while they were being tipped that the SMB was no longer buying from suppliers, but via middle men through which the board had considerable interests.

A huge mark-up was also being applied by the middle men, while another main concern was regarding the monopoly, or restricted goods whereby local merchants were only allowed to buy a small quantity, or none at all.

Another point of concern raised was that local merchants were being prevented, or blocked from importing certain goods which they were told were being manufactured locally.

This, Mr Boullé said was one commodity off the shelves, thus reduction in profit for local merchants or businesses.

Case 0271: Ayub Suleman

In his evidence in the case, Mr Morin described Mr Suleman’s behaviour along with his evidence in front of the commission as a mystery.

He explained that whatever Mr Suleman said was based on allegations made by someone else, other than him, since he Mr Morin gave his testimony in closed session.

Mr Morin noted that out of the detainees from 1977 up to the mid-eighties, 60 percent of them should have not been detained, while 20 percent were in the grey area, meaning it was not clear whether they were involved in any unlawful action or not.

Mr Morin said the remaining 20 percent were directly or indirectly involved in plotting and sabotage.

He explained that Mr Suleman was among the 60 percent and he was detained on several occasions for being in possession of materials labelled as seditious publications.

He added that Mr Suleman also revealed plans portraying him as one of the plotters and also gave information regarding a plot to overthrow the regime in power.

Mr Morin also added that Mr Suleman’s stories were fictions and at times mentioned the names of other people, thus putting them in danger while being a bluffer and bragger.

Case 0125: Patrick Lablache

In the case of Mr Patrick Lablache regarding the famous incident known as ‘Repiblik Praslin’, Mr Morin who was an assistant superintendent at that time claimed that he was in charge of the Praslin police school.

He claimed that he was not directly involved in the investigation apart from helping out with some search where documents such as letters and notes, all related to the incident were recovered.

Among the documents were a list of a shadow cabinet of ministers, lists of ex-police officers who were to replace the existing ones at that time, chief executives of public departments on Praslin, among others.

Mr Morin noted that most of the people who were arrested had their names featured on the different lists, including Mr Lablache.

This, he said, was done under the detention orders issued by ex-President France Albert René.

He also explained that his implication in the incident was a result of a direct order from the Mahe headquarters.

Roland Duval