Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission – Hearing Number 122 |13 November 2020

Dolor Ernesta (Photo: Thomas Meriton)

Premature adjournment due to non-attendance of witnesses

The Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) yesterday adjourned its session ahead of time after three of the potential witnesses failed to turn up to give evidence in Case O333 regarding the death of Robin Henriette.

In a statement, chairperson of the TRNUC, Gabrielle Louise McIntyre, said the three witnesses from the case (Ezai Hoareau, Mickey Barbier and Aubrey Petrousse) were instructed by Stefan Knights from the Attorney General’s (AG) office not to appear before the commission.

Even if the commission asked them to come in and put the advice on record, the witnesses were instructed to seek further advice from the AG’s office.

She added that from what the commission understands, there is no court injunction that has been issued against it, preventing it from hearing evidence in the case concerned.

As a result of non-attendance of the witnesses, the TRNUC hearing did not continue.

The complaint was brought forward by Mr Henriette’s sister, Annette Henriette, and his companion Harianna Labrosse.

Mr Henriette was killed on January 12, 2005 on his small plantation at Port Glaud.

Born on July 16, 1979, he was the youngest child in a family of seven and was living with Ms Labrosse along with two of his own and one adopted children.

Case 023: Marie-Therese Abbot

The only witness in open session yesterday was ex-Minister for Community Development Dolor Ernesta who was answering clarification regarding Case 023 filed by Marie-Therese Abbot, regarding the acquisition of her parcel C329.

In her complaint before the commission, Mrs Abbot claims that her parcel was acquired in 1988, supposedly in the public interest, while the real reason was that the then Minister Jacques Hodoul wanted her current tenant, who was a friend of his, to be able to buy the property.

She claims that she never received any compensation for the acquisition and finally she got it returned to her in 1994, but when it was returned, it was in a terrible state. It was littered with old cars, while the garage and soil were polluted with oil.

Mrs Abbot further claims that when she met with Mr Ernesta concerning the state of the property, and also when she did have the property, the government was collecting the rent that she had previously been collecting from the tenant.

She asked for compensation from the loss of rent and also for the condition of her property when returned to her, but was informed that she will not get any compensation since the property had been returned to her.

She therefore felt that this was not a fair outcome in her case.

While trying to avoid the main topic, Mr Ernesta said it is important to look at the complaint in the right perspective, or context, giving lectures on the Constitution and laws of the land.

He explained that in 1993, the country entered into a new constitutional arrangement, putting emphasis on the Seychellois Charter of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedom, stressing on Right to Property.

He also took a lot of time to talk about Chapter 16 –Transitional Provisions – Schedule 7, Part 3, which is about Compensation for Past Land Acquisition, a task which was attached to him as Minister.

Mr Ernesta noted that the value of property changes with time for various reasons, including economic and added infrastructure.

He added that the complainant had already received compensation, but was rather seeking for additional reimbursement.

This, he said, would have caused controversies in relation to other cases if accepted.

Mr Ernesta agreed with Mrs McIntyre that by returning the property, the government discharged its constitutional obligations and if the complainant was thereafter dissatisfied the proper course of action for her would have been to go to the court and seek additional money, rather than writing all the time to the ministry, requesting it.

Roland Duval