Land claims dominate yesterday’s TRNUC hearings |18 May 2021

The Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) yesterday in open session heard two complaints relating to government acquisition of prime land plots, and one other, in addition to hearing evidence from former government official Dolor Ernesta.

Case 0290: José St Ange represents Maryse Wilmot and Bernard Bonnetard in Cap Ternay land claim

José St Ange, complainant in case 0150, represented complainants Maryse Wilmot and Bernard Bonnetard in case 0290 in presenting their case relating to the acquisition of 143.7 acres of land at Cap Ternay which was acquired by the Seychelles government in 1981.

Maryse Wilmot, mother in law to Mr St Ange who is presently aged 82, and her brother Mr Bonnetard could not be present to present their case to the commissioners, as Mr Bonnetard resides in South Africa.

In commencing, Mr St Ange noted that large portions of the area of Cap Ternay, particularly large parcels of the plateau, had been in the family for years and comprised a cinnamon and patchouli plantation.

Presenting to the commissioners a map highlighting the plots to which they are referring, in addition to documents and correspondence relevant to the complaint, detailed the parcel numbers which include; J234 at Grand Piece belonging to Maryse, J235 at Grand Piece belonging to Bernard, J287 on the plateau belonging to Bernard, Maryse and Sonia (the sister), J289 on the plateau belonging to Bernard, J290 where the chapel was located on the plateau, belonging to Bernard, Maryse and Sonia, but the chapel disappeared just as soon as they took over and J291 on the plateau belonging to Maryse.

Mr St Ange went on to note that the entire property was originally owned by the late Sir France Bonnetard, a past Chief Justice of the Seychelles, who left the property to his three children – Sonia, Maryse and Bernard – upon his passing in 1969. By then, the property and small family house located on the Grand Piece hills were only accessible by boat.

Mr St Ange went on to note that after the passing of Mr Bonnetard, Maryse, who was residing in England with her husband, visited Seychelles along with the two children where they stayed at the small family house for a year, during which they decided to make a permanent move and start a new life in Seychelles at Cap Ternay. They briefly returned to England to organise themselves and came back to open ‘Seybake’, Seychelles largest bakery at the time.  A few years later, with business doing well, plans were underway to build a 20-room tourism establishment at Cap Ternay, which would have been the primary source of income for Maryse and husband Allen. Bernard, who was living in South Africa at the time, where his wife was undergoing cancer treatment, was also planning to return to Seychelles and build his house at Cap Ternay, Mr St Ange added.  

“One day, Maryse received a message from late former President Albert Rene through his wife Geva that he had visited Cap Ternay and while over there he was thirsty, so he broke the lock on their house. He said how much he loved the land there and offered to pay to fix the lock. This was obviously when the seed was planted, and President Rene decided he wanted Cap Ternay.”

“During 1981, both Bernard and Maryse were written by the government with an offer to purchase their lots at Cap Ternay, with the ultimatum that if the sale was not agreed, the Seychelles government would compulsorily acquire the land, paying only what was required by the relevant laws at the time, alluding to the fact that this would be less than the current offer. I understand that they only paid compensation on any improvements made on the land, and any business operations on the land. We were told at the time, that land had zero value. Being both of their respective largest assets and with the uncertainty of what the compensation would be if the land was compulsorily acquired, Maryse and Bernard both reluctantly accepted government’s offer, having negotiated a slight increase in the sale to cover the cost of stamp duty, which would ultimately have to be paid on the sale,” he stated.

Elaborating further, Mr St Ange noted that the sale was a devastating blow to Maryse and family, stripping them of their plans for their future livelihood, as well as taking away a special connection she had to her late father. This also robbed Bernard of his dream of returning to Seychelles to build his family home on his land, he added.

A portion of the acquired lots, specifically the Cap Ternay plateau, was approximately one year later used as a second location for the National Youth Service village.

“Following its failure, Cap Ternay was left to ruin, and the land has not been used for any purpose since. Grand Piece has never been touched and the old house has been left to ruin. We visited the land by boat a few years ago, and while the house had collapsed, the generator still proudly stood among the forest overrunning the area,” Mr St Ange added.

In recent years, the Seychelles government were in negotiations with Emirates Group for the sale of Cap Ternay for the construction of a luxury hotel, a project which was vehemently opposed by citizens, leading former President James Michel to announce that the project would not proceed. There have been no developments on the land since, Mr St Ange remarked.  

“On behalf of Maryse and Bernard, we are asking for the return of this land. As there is no current use for the land, there should be no issue with having all lots returned immediately, additionally, the previous planning approvals granted for the land will be upheld,” he said in concluding.

Mr St Ange is due to reappear before the commission on behalf of Mrs Wilmot on Wednesday, in relation to the ‘Seybake’ business and violations of their human rights.

Case 0279: Roland Verlaque on family’s prime acquired land

Roland Verlaque, in setting out his complaint, explained that he is of a family of eleven, and that they lost their father to a heart attack when he was still aged six. At the time, seven of them were residing in a two-bedroom house as they were preparing to emigrate to Australia, but such did not happen after the death of their father.

Left with the children and some savings, his mother sought to buy a larger property from their grandfather Charles Payet, giving to Mr Payet a deposit for the property. However, Mr Payet failed to honour the contract, and allegedly sold the plot to another gentleman, leading his mother to pursue legal action. According to Mr Verlaque, his mother had to travel to and from Mahé for four years for court appearances and she won the case against Mr Payet who was represented by lawyer Albert Rene.

“When she won the case, Albert Rene told her that ‘you may have won here, but you will lose,’” he stated.  We moved into the house, which was much bigger so it was fantastic, and we started to work the land, cultivating vanilla, and coconuts and even wood. Just after the coup d’etat, the government started sending officials to us to tell us that they will take the land, and my mother would reply that they cannot do so as she has six children to care for from the property,” Mr Verlaque noted, stating that they were persecuted and ended up leaving for Australia.

He went on to note that the government assumed ownership of the property between 1980 to 1982 and that over the years, they have tried different avenues to claim back the land. Additionally, he claims that the land was subdivided and sold in 1992 for fairly cheap, and that some of these plots have since been sold for millions.

Moving on to another property at Anse Lazio, Mr Verlaque detailed how he has on numerous time, upon his return applied for permission to establish a small café on his property with a souvenir boutique but such was never granted on the basis that there should be no further tourism developments at Anse Lazio, although he remarks that his neighbours have been granted permission to establish a bar and other tourism developments.

Mr Verlaque went on to tell the commissioners how when the provisions of the 1993 Constitution was established,  they forwarded their case and everything seemed to be going well, until they were once again informed that the land would be kept on the premise that it will be given to a five-star Lemuria resort for a golf course.  He went on to note that his mother protested when works started on the property and as a result both his mother and him were arrested and detained. Despite pursuing the case in court through legal representative Philip Boulle, the case was dismissed before the Constitutional Court and the appeal dismissed in the Appeal’s Court.

Mr Verlaque also told commissioners that his family was compensated R5 million for the property, which he said measures around 22 acres.

Case 0297: Flavien Lablache, former public servant, alleges victimisation

Former accounts technician with the Seychelles Police Force, Flavien Lablache, recounted his career with the force from 1988 and his promotion to accountant, until mid-2007 when he was against his will informed that he would be transferred to the Seychelles Public Transport Corporation (SPTC) as an internal auditor.

Unsatisfied with the decision which he alleges was handed down by Jessie Esparon, who was at the time in charge of the department of Public Administration (DPA), he claims he sought to clarify from the Commissioner of Police Gerard Waye-Hive who said he had nothing to do with it, although he agreed that the transfer may be politically-related.

“It was just out of malice, just to get me out from the police. Because Jessie told me that if I did not want to go to SPTC, I would have to hand in my resignation,” Mr Lablache noted, stating that there were no provisions in the Public Service Order that one should be transferred to another entity or department.

Mr Lablache went on to detail the various legal provisions that justify why the transfer should not have happened, opting to go into closed session for the rest of his complaint.

Case 0258: Vengadachalam Chetty - Witness Dolor Ernesta

Former government official Dolor Ernesta appeared again as a witness, this time in relation to the complaint of Vengadachalam Chetty regarding the compulsory acquisition of his land parcel, V423, in the national interest on November 29, 1985.

Mr Chetty in his complaint claims that he was not informed of the acquisition at the time it took place and that he was only through his bank manager, and that there were tenants on the property at the time, and that he had at the time secured an order for the tenants to leave as he had intentions of developing it. After the acquisition, he began to seek the return of the land and wrote letters to that effect as of February 1992, whereby he was informed that his request is being considered. However, in July 1992, the land was transferred by government to another individual.

Mr Chetty also claimed that government, through Mr Ernesta, agreed to compensate him for the parcel, although they left no room for negotiations, and that he was only compensated R125,000.

In starting, Mr Ernesta highlighted that the complainant uses three names on official documents, stating that the acquisition was made under a law, which changed with the Constitution in 1993. Mr Ernesta detailed the different uses and supposed rationale behind the acquisitions, such as for redistribution or the funding, although chairperson of the Commission Gabrielle McIntyre asserted that numerous lots were acquired in such a manner and simply abandoned.

Mr Ernesta went on to tell commissioners how he has no knowledge of the specific case as he has not yet assumed positions within any ministry until 1993, although he remarked that “did not seem to be any malice, otherwise they would have acquired his other properties to destroy him”.  He categorically denied the allegation made by the complainant that Mr Ernesta was the one who offered him the compensation.

Instead of providing further information with regard to the property in question, Mr Ernesta went on to detail to the commission all the properties, processes and finances by Mr Chetty over the years. He was adamant to provide the commission with such information, although the commission pointed out that such information is not relevant to his complaint and the acquisition.

He however detailed the policies that were in place during his reign. Prior to concluding, Mr Ernesta spoke of the amnesty, questioning how exactly the amnesty will work, and the powers of government and the judiciary over the commission’s powers to grant perpetrators amnesty.

The commission is due to resume this morning.

Laura Pillay