Court dismisses one of three motions by Valabhji couple in anti-corruption case |18 October 2022

The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed one of three motions filed by couple Laura and Mukesh Valabhji in the missing USD 50 million matter being prosecuted by the Anti-Corruption Commission of Seychelles (ACCS).

Chief Justice (CJ) Rony Govinden ruled that the motion, regarding the legality of a number of non-Seychellois nationals who allegedly form part of the ACCS’s investigative unit is “purely a collateral issue” which would result in court “losing focus and its attention” on the main issue at hand. The motion sought access to the Gainful Occupation Permits (GOPs), and travel history of these individuals.

CJ Govinden noted that the application would necessitate the court to carry out an investigation into the legal status of the individuals, but that there are a number of other legal avenues available to the defence in the search of such information. The request may be made directly to the ACCS, or, in the event of refusal, a request can be made in accordance with the Access to Information Act.

“What is clear is that the court is not empowered to carry out this investigation, through the course of a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, I find that the application is incompetent and it is accordingly dismissed,” CJ Govinden stated.

In relation to the other two motions, in consideration of the “voluminous reply” by the ACCS, court granted the defence adequate time to consider and respond.

The first motion relates to the safekeeping of the seized wines and alcoholic beverages which have since been stored at a Seychelles Trading Company (STC) property, while the other relates to photographs and documents seized at the Valabhji couple’s property. The STC also replied to the motion.

In light of e-mail correspondence received by the court that Mrs Valabhji and husband Mukesh would no longer be represented by two UK barristers, Mrs Valabhji expressed to court that the ACCS has been “reluctant” in allowing them to access funds from their account to effect the necessary payments for legal representation. Court advised the ACCS to ensure that they are able to access the funds to secure representation prior to the commencement of the case, on December 1.

The ACCS’ lawyer Michael Skelley refuted the allegation that it is preventing the defendants from accessing proper representation as such is their right under the Constitution.

In a separate case, the firearms and prevention of terrorism case, court is to deliver a decision with regard to whom, of the eight individuals proposed by both the prosecution and defence, will be appointed to commence review of Laura Valabhji’s seized electronic devices, on October 31.

This follows court’s ruling on October 10, whereby CJ Govinden granted the prosecution’s application to permit the appointment of an independent investigator, despite Mrs Valabhji’s legal professional privilege as an Attorney. CJ Govinden justified the decision, noting that “the privilege here is that of the clients and the clients alone”.

During yesterday’s proceedings, state prosecutor George Tachet proposed two persons, including a former Police Commissioner and a former President of the Court of Appeal.

For her part, Mrs Valabhji, who represented herself in the absence of Counsel Samantha Aglae, suggested six individuals, although she expressed that she has no objections to the latter individual proposed by the Prosecution.

Court is to consider the individuals suggested by both parties, and will eventually decide on whom to appoint. The review exercise seeks to determine whether the seized electronic devices contain material of evidential value in relation to the large cache of weapons and ammunition discovered at the Morne Blanc property she shares with co-accused in the terrorism case, her husband Mukesh Valabhji. 

The Valabhji couple, along with former Seychelles Defence Forces (SDF) senior official Leslie Benoiton and Leopold Payet, retired Lieutenant Colonel and presidential chief security Officer Frank Marie were in February charged with possession of firearms, among other charges under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

All three, the Valabhji couple and Mr Benoiton, are to remain in remand custody until October 31.

Laura Pillay