Supreme Court to rule on Valabhji couple’s payments of legal fees motion this week |07 November 2022
The Supreme Court is to deliver its ruling on two motions filed by the Valabhji couple, Mukesh and Laura, on November 10, following their last appearance on Friday November 4.
The pair, who are involved in two separate cases – the first relating to firearms and the prevention of terrorism, and the second pertaining to corruption – on Friday brought a motion relating to payment of legal fees by Mr Valabhji, as well as the disclosure of security camera records.
Earlier last week, on Monday October 31, the court heard two of four motions filed by the couple, also delivering its rulings.
The first application, seeking the inspection of the storage facility where expensive wine collection is being detained and for return of the items was dismissed by Chief Justice Rony Govinden, who stated that as custodians of the property, the Anti-Corruption Commission of Seychelles (ACCS) has the responsibility of ensuring the safety of the items, and that they do not deteriorate.
CJ Govinden noted that the court did not find any legal basis for the application by Mr Valabhji to inspect the storage facility, pointing out that once the person is charged with an offence, certain rights and privileges are lost, although the court ensures that the seizing entity complies with the law with regard to detention of the seized property. Court also ordered that inventory of the ceased wines be provided and issued direction not to dispose of the property.
The second application was regarding disclosure of documents, inventory of seized items and return of the items not being used as evidence in the case. The ACCS in response to the application stated that investigations are still ongoing, so there is a possibility that more seized documents will become relevant to the case. At present, not all documents are included in disclosure as some are not relevant to the case at the moment.
However, the ACCS conceded that they will make available photographs of all items seized and digitalised copies of all documents, whether or not they would be produced in the trial. The court ordered that this takes place as it accepted the ACCS arguments that their originals may be relevant and probative in the forthcoming trial.
Additionally, court further ruled that items and documents must be returned as and when found to be not relevant to the prosecution’s case.
With regards to valuable items such as jewellery, court accepted ACCS' argument that they be subject matter to Section 60 of the Anti-Corruption Act, and seized on this basis. However, any items not the subject matter of this procedure or any others must be returned to representatives of the applicants. As it was up to the ACCS to decide what items are to be considered provisionally seized under that section, the personal attendance of the applicants on the premises were not warranted
The court pointed out that the ACCS needs to provide full disclosure of the documents it intends to rely on before the trial commences, so as to give the accused persons adequate time to prepare their defence.
In relation to the firearms case, Joseph Athanasius was appointed as the independent investigator who is to review Mrs Valabhji's documents, including those which she argued was covered by legal privilege.