Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission – Hearing Number 135 |11 December 2020

Patrick Lablache (Photo: Anel Robert) (photo left) and Mathilda Twomey (Photo: Anel Robert)

Chairman McIntyre sheds light on the presence of interns at the TRNUC

Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) does have some foreign people working as interns and they are fully self-funded, paying for their flights, accommodations, daily subsistence, while the commission is paying them absolutely nothing.

Chairperson of the TRNUC Gabrielle Louise McIntyre made the clarifications yesterday at hearing number 135 of the TRNUC, following questions raised regarding foreigners working for the commission.

The first witness to appear in open session yesterday was ex-Chief Justice Dr Mathilda Twomey who came as a witness in Case 0220 filed by Marie Lespoir and Bernadette Lespoir regarding the death of their son and brother Marc Lespoir who was gunned down by soldier Joachim Bastienne at the Grand Police Prison on March 6, 1996.

Dr Twomey was speaking in her capacity as lawyer and friend of the deceased.

The second witness in open session was Patrick Lablache in relation to several cases related to land acquisition, precisely cases 035 filed by Jules Stravens, 042 filed by Julita Evans Stravens, 0249 filed by Rudolf Stravens, 080 filed by Jose St Ange, 045 filed by Clive Delorie, and 0120 filed by Mariette Naiken, previously addressed in closed session conceded that complainants have a right and he is negotiating with the complainants to settle their cases.

In case of the Stravens, they claimed that in 1989 and 1994 their late father Nicholas Stravens transferred the land comprised in Parcel S2183 and C1752 to the government of Seychelles under duress.

It is alleged that an open market sale was denied and that the sums of money paid by the government for the properties was a gross undervaluation of their true worth at the time.

He also answered question in case 084 filed by Dora Michel regarding the victimisation of Jean Claude Michel for political reasons.

Also scheduled to appear before the TRNUC was witness Jean Bacco who was supposed to give evidence in case 0170 filed by Brian Anacoura, but the former failed to attend the sitting.

Case 005: Carlette Ball

The first witness in the TRNUC seat yesterday was the bodyguard of ex-President Albert Rene, Frank Quatre, who appeared in closed session. He was being quizzed as a suspect in relation to the disappearance of Hassan Ali Umarji, a well known businessman in Seychelles on August 13, 1977.

The case, numbered 055 and filed by Carlette Ball – the victim’s partner – has attracted many witnesses who gave various evidences on the first ever case of disappearance after the 1977 Coup.

Mr Umarji’s empty car was found abandoned at St Louis, facing towards Beau Vallon, with the door open and the radio on.

It is to note that in his evidence regarding the case on November 10, 2020, witness Barry Zelia stated that he heard someone shouting (Quatre, let us grab him and go).

Mr Zelia however explained to the commission that at that time he was not aware whether the word ‘Quatre’ was being used as a person’s name, or a code.

Case 0220: Marie Lespoir and Bernadette Lespoir

Dr Mathilda Twomey was the first witness in open session yesterday, in her capacity as the lawyer of the late Mark Lespoir who was assassinated at the Grand Police Prison on March 6, 1996.

Dr Twomey began her testimony by giving an account of how she first met Mr Lespoir during the days her father was a prison warden at the Union Vale Prison where the deceased was serving time at the juvenile section of the prison.

She explained that in 1988, following her return in the country from studying abroad, she received a Legal Aid Certificate to represent Mr Lespoir and she instantly noticed that the client was someone she knew very well.

She noted that Mr Lespoir came from a very dysfunctional family and he grew up in prison, where he spent most his life and even died.

While respecting the feelings of Mr Lespoir’s family, Dr Twomey noted that the deceased did not do much good while alive and was even involved in two violent rape cases in 1988, of which she represented him in one, while lawyer John Renaud represented him in the other case.

She explained that being brought up in prison, Mr Lespoir did not know how to deal with women and felt that a simple conversation or dance was the go-ahead for sexual intercourse.

This, she said, was his main complexity and she as her lawyer and friend had a lot of difficulty to make him understand the meaning of sexual consent.

The first rape case by Mr Lespoir was committed on October 15, 1988 and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment on June 28, 1989.

Dr Twomey explained that following his first case, Mr Lespoir was granted bail, but committed another rape on December 24, 1988, this time on a 16-year-old girl.

For the second rape he was sentenced to seven years in prison.

She noted that during the trial, HIV-Aids was new in the country and during the case, the judge made reference to the possibility of infecting the victim during the assault.

This, she said, offended Mr Lespoir who exited the box and assaulted the judge, earning him an extra three years in prison.

She also mentioned something which she said is still a bit of a burden on her chest following the failed appeals of Mr Lespoir.

Dr Twomey explained that even if there was no legal requirement, Mr Lespoir always asked to see her and she always welcomed him as a friend, offering him simple treats such as slippers, cakes, toothbrushes and toothpastes.

She said due to personal difficulties, she left the country for Ireland in 1995 and did not tell Mr Lespoir about it, until she heard about his death in prison.

Dr Twomey explained that after several enquiries, she heard that on that particular day, Mr Lespoir asked to go and see his lawyer (Dr Twomey) who unfortunately was not in the country.

She added that she feels an element of guilt since the deceased might have got upset when informed that she was not in the country, to which he felt enraged, probably thinking that the authority was lying to him.

A situation which Dr Twomey said will automatically trigger some sort of anger into Mr Lespoir who she knew very well.

She added that what she does not understand and tried to find out upon her return was whether there was any inquest held in Mr Lespoir’s death and has never been able to get to the bottom of it.

Based on her past knowledge, Dr Twomey said the lack of inquest was purely based on the existing tension back then between the police and the army.

Another issue she mentioned was that civilian prisoners were being administered by the army which were not trained for that kind of job, but were rather trained to take prompt and defensive actions in case of an aggression.

Dr Twomey also talked about the condition of the Grand Police Prison which she said was inhumane and far from the real purpose of a prison which is to rehabilitate people.

She shared her experience at the Grand Police Prison as a lawyer when she visited her clients on regular basis, and also during her visit there as a member of the committee who worked on the country’s constitution.

She also gave a detailed account of how it was difficult to perform their job as lawyers back in the early nineties, even if we were in the multi-party system.

She explained that there were even judges who were giving rulings based on favours for the executive at that time.

Cases: (035) Jules Stravens, (042), Julita Evans Stravens, (0249) Rudolf Stravens

In his evidence, Mr Lablache stated that Parcel S2183 was bought by the government from Nicholson Stravens on July 26, 1989 for a sum of R375,000 following several negotiations with the owner who offered the property to the government, due to his age and health condition.

On February 23, 1993 Mr Stravens wrote to ex-President Albert Rene, setting out the reasons and events leading to the purchase of the property by duress.

Mr Lablache explained that the letter does not make any specific requests, but only statement of facts.

As for parcel C1752, Mr Lablache said in 1985, Mr Stravens offered to sell the property (15 acres) by writing to the president who referred him to Minister Jacques Hodoul who was responsible for Land at that time.

Negotiations started on October 7, 1985 and the government made an offer of R375,000, payable over a period of five years and Mr Stravens accepted the offer on November 4, 1985, but requested a shorter time of payment, precisely three years.

He received R150,000 as first payment, with an interest of eight percent per annum.

Based on the evidence given, Mr Lablache said the process is not a case of compulsory acquisition, but rather a case which went on under negotiations.

When asked whether Mr Stravens could have sold his property through private market, Mr Lablache said yes, since the former stated that he had previously received an offer.

He added that the offer was also fair, considering the time.

Case 080: Jose St Ange

In his complaint Mr St Ange alleges that his father was informed that all hotels on La Digue would be nationalised and he was required to sell his hotel to the government.

The father of Mr St Ange sold his property as directed (Cabanes des Anges), however, other hotels were not nationalised.

His property was then sold to L’Union Estate who then leased it to the La Digue Island Lodge.

Once again, Mr Lablache denied that it was a case of nationalisation and explained that the property in question was bought by the government for reasons he does not know.

This, he said, include a loan with the Banque Française Commerciale Océan Indien and also taxation issues.

Case 045: Clive Delorié

In his initial complaint in July this year, Mr Delorié claimed that his father Robert Delorié, a former minister, was not compensated for his share in the islands of Providence and Cerf owned by the company Providence Group and Fisheries Limited, of which he was a major shareholder. According to Mr Delorié, the islands were sold by the company on September 15, 1980 to ex-President France Albert René and he never received anything from that.

In addition he also claimed interests in the island of Ile Platte and half of Bird Island. He claimed that his father sold half of Bird Island to Guy Savy in 1980 and that he was left with half which he leased in 1988 for 99 years.

Regarding Ile Platte, he claimed that his father was shareholder of the United Island Development which sold the island to the government, but he alleges that his father was deprived of everything he had.

Regarding the claim, Mr Lablache said he does not know Mr Delorié and that they have no records of him, or any related transactions or business.

He added that also regarding Bird Island, it is a private matter and the government does not have any involvement whatsoever in the issue.

Case 084: Dora Michel

The case made reference to Jean-Claude Michel who was refused a job as a town planner due to the fact that his family were fervent supporters of the Democratic Party.

Mr Lablache explained that Mr Michel used to work with the government as an urban planner for over five years, but he does not know what happened to him after that.

He denied any knowledge of victimisation due to political belief.

Case 0120: Mariette Naiken

In her claim, Mrs Naiken made a complaint regarding compulsory acquisition of land in 1983 of which she was allegedly not compensated for the whole property (Parcel number T572).

Mr Lablache explained that Mrs Naiken is one of the heirs of the property belonging to Antoine Mondon at Anse Marie-Louise, which is a property of 24.8 hectares which was compulsorily acquired on July 7, 1986.

He explained that according to the record, it is not very clear why the acquisition took place, but it looks like it was a mixture of agriculture and tourism project which was being suggested for the property.

Mr Lablache explained that one of the heirs approached the government in an attempt to get compensation, but was advised to appoint a fiduciary.

He added that later on, the authority was told by a survey company they were representing the Antoine Mondon beneficiaries.

Due to the size of the line of inheritance and its complexity to partition the property, compensation in cash was proposed.

In 2001, the family requested the property back, but the government proposed R1 million as compensation since they had already leased the property.

He added that still in 2001, other family members informed the government that the negotiations were being carried without them.

In 2012, the government made an offer of R5 million to heirs who refused, before another was made to return part of the property, along with a cash compensation of R8 million.

He explained that the heirs agreed for the return of the property, but wanted R12 million instead of the proposed R8 million.

In February 2013, the government agreed to give R12 million in condition for a right-of-way across one of the surveyed parcels, to which the heirs raised their demand to R15 million, which was later dropped to R13 million.

So to conclude, Mr Lablache said the government honoured its commitment regarding compensation and return of part of the property.

Roland Duval