Truth Reconciliation and National Unity Commission: |17 September 2019
More alleged human rights violations heard
The Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission yesterday continued with its hearing of evidence pertaining to numerous cases of alleged human rights violations committed during the 1977 coup and the ensuing years in which Seychelles was a one-party state.
The commission conducted its sixth hearing in case 003 of Daniel Auguste, case 007 of Anglain Labiche, case 006 of Paul Michaud and case 001 of Dorothy Chang-Him-Vital.
The first witness to appear before the commission was lawyer Bernard George in relation with two complaints in case 002, the case of Lewis Betsy and case 003, the case of Daniel Auguste. Presiding over the hearing the chairperson of the commission, Gabrielle Louise McIntyre, said that both complainants were arrested at the pleasure of then President France Albert Rene and for the security of the country.
She noted that the commission was aware that during the period of the coup d’etat of 1977, people were detained under section 2 of the preservation of public security and emergency powers regulations 1978. The commission wanted to hear from Mr Georges, as an expert witness, how these arrests were effected given his extensive experience in this area. In addition in relation to Mr Auguste, who Mr Georges was his lawyer in helping to try to get his property back, the commission wanted to hear any further evidence in the case and also as to why Mr Auguste was unsuccessful in getting his property back.
Starting with the arrest and detention issues which started in 1978, Mr Georges said that following the coup in 1977, there were occasional detentions of persons who were suspects of activities injurious to the security of the state.
He noted that these arrests were not under penal legislation available at that time or to the prosecution authorities and those arrests and detentions were made at the pleasure of the president under an order signed by him.
Mr Georges said the arrests and detentions were enacted periodically through statutory instruments such as the preservation of public security act, a colonial piece of legislation used also in other British colonial territories in the 1950s with a view to controlling independence movements.
He noted though that most of the people detained were not politically vocal and posed no threat to the state.
Mr Georges said that other than detention orders from President Rene, some were also from Ogilvy Berlouis, the Minister for Defence at that time.
Mr Georges said that everything was clothed in the government legality that the President of the day got everything he wanted legally as he was covered by a law somewhere. He cited the famous offer to those in detention or those who were thought to be a threat to the system at that time: “We would let you out if you would leave the country”.
In the case of Mr Auguste losing his property after he was forced into exile, Mr Georges, who was his lawyer, said that though the property being acquired, as per signed agreement, in default of the three months arrears payment (R30,000), the grounds for losing the case in court, Mr Auguste being not in the country should have been officially made known of the repossession and should have had the chance also to defend the acquisition of his property in court, something that did not happen.
Mr Georges went further to clarify that he does not think the order to winning the case in court in favour of the occupant of the property came from State House as the court already knew beforehand what the outcome should be and it worked that way.
He said that did not mean the court was being unfair but rather the law under which the case was tried.
Mr Auguste went into exile in 1987 and his house was repossessed by the Seychelles Housing Development Corporation (SHDC) on May 7, 1991 and then sold to Mr Auguste’s sister-in-law in 1997 after making loans re-payment for only two months.
He noted that there were certain things that the court closed its eyes to and whatever the merits and de-merits of the case, the fact that the person living in the house was permitted to buy the house and granted a loan with a mortgage from the same organisation (SHDC) which have repossessed the property from Mr Auguste was an element which the court closed its eyes to.
Mr Georges said that abstractions should not have been made in the case considering the specificities that a person borrowed money and had been detained and forced into exile or voluntarily goes into exile because of his previous detention, who was in arrears but has organised with SHDC for a reduced loan repayment and had obtained the permission to put somebody in the house on the grounds of paying an increased sum in order to further reduce the loan.
He said that when the judge comes to making a decision to repossess the property, it beholds the judge to ensure that person who’s going to lose his property has been given every opportunity to be present before the court and to present his defence which was lacking in the case.
Mr Georges said that from statements from SHDC the arrears in loan repayment stood at nearly R16,000 and not R30,000 at the time of repossession. He concluded that there should have been more effort made in ensuring that Mr Auguste was aware that he stood to lose his property unless it was part strategy to disown him of his property.
In relation to Mr Betsy’s land acquisition which was later transferred to a Serge Monthy, Mr Georges said that he only heard Mrs Betsy’s testimony from the hearing saying that she had come to him to make an application restraining any further dealings with their land while negotiation they were in with government and he also was not able to trace the documents in question as a notary at that time as it was prepared somewhere else. The document was a caution order dated April 15, 1994 and the land registration document showing the transfer to Mr Monthy was dated April 6, 1994 and presented and registered on April 11, 1994.
Mr Georges said that had Mrs Betsy got in before April 11, her document would have been dealt with first and the instrument of transfer to Mr Monthy would have been rejected and not be registered.
Case 007
Anglain Labiche took the stand in the afternoon and his case primarily was about being abused in the army some 28 eight years ago. He joined the army in August 1986 and after graduating at the Barbarons army camp, he was transferred to the L’Exile army camp at Sans Souci. In both camps, especially L’Exile, he as a commando worked as a farmer on farms which he claimed did not belong to the army and he, along with others like him, were working for some individuals.
After two years he was transferred to work at the ex-house of former President Michel also at Sans Souci. As a commando radio operator, Mr Labiche said that his problem started when one of his colleagues, (a Mr Charlette) sent some sexual insults on his sister over the radio and upon his reply, his reply version to the other end was overheard by Lieutenant Georges Camille and was reported for using vulgar language on the radio.
On one of his daily escort duties of the president to State House, he was informed by his superior, Sergeant Emmanuel Larue, that he had to stay at State House because his off duty pass had been revoked. Going back to the camp, he said he tried to find out from Lieutenant Camille as to why his off duty pass has been revoked and the answer he got was that because he said something inappropriate over the radio.
Mr Camille said he told Lieutenant Camille that he should have launched an investigation first to know what happened and after some heated conversation he put his gun and ammunition on the table and challenged Lieutenant Camille into a fight to settle the problem.
For that he was taken back to the farm at L’Exile army camp and put into custody in a small cell that looked like a cage, for five days where one cannot stand or sleep as punishment. He said the cage made of concrete with iron bars was constructed near the pig styes so that enduring the smell also formed part of the punishment, without forgetting the heat one also had to endure.
The torture also included food rationing and dirty water thrown at you.
Mr Labiche said he did not deserve to be treated in that way as he only answered back what had been thrown at him from the other end of the line. After the five days of punishment he was transferred to the farm at Barbarons army camp.
In his second complaint, Mr Labiche said that in 1989 he was asked to voluntarily enter the cell and was told to make a statement in relation to a cannabis plantation not far from where he was working. He said that for the record the police and the army were watching over the plantation to find its owner. Following investigation Mr Labiche said it was found that he was not connected with the drug plantation but he was still kept in the cell following the day’s work and this kept going for five months with other types of torture so as to confess.
Mr Labiche said he was also punished for three months cutting grass for the cattle after he reportedly left the army camp to buy a packet of cigarette in a shop at Anse Boileau which for him was unfair even though he was on probation. He noted that after six years in the force he got only R7,000 he didn’t know for what and later through an assembly of some former soldiers he managed to receive another R18,000 after some back and forth for the benefit.
In a letter he sent to the commission, Lieutenant Camille said he never recalled ordering anyone to be locked inside a cell of 4x4 feet and that there were no facilities to lock anyone at that time at both army camps and that Mr Labiche had got his facts wrong.
Maryse Berlouis appeared in case 006 of Paul Michaud who claimed in his testimony that his brother Roland was studying medicine in the United Kingdom on a scholarship and his mother had signed a bond over parcel number V5288 as required by the government to allow him to study overseas. At the end of his studies Roland did not want to return to work in Seychelles and Mr Michaud claimed that his mother went to the Ministry of Education and asked to pay the cost of Roland’s scholarship so that he could stay in the UK.
Mr Michaud claimed his mother spoke to both Mrs Berlouis and Willy Confait who both refused to allow her to pay for the cost of the scholarship, but instead insisted on taking the land. Mr Michaud claimed his mother was under duress to sign over the property and on July 15, 1988 a notice of land acquisition was issued and signed by Jacques Hodoul who was the minister responsible for land at the time.
The chairperson of the commission, Mrs McIntyre said that the commission had already heard from Mr Confait who said he thought there was some discussion of not willing to pay between the mother and Mrs Berlouis but he left leaving the two together.
Mrs Berlouis said she recalls the case very well, noting that upon resuming work following a sabbatical leave in 1987 she was posted to take over from Mr Confait in 1988. She added that when the case was handed over to her, the contract of payment had already been discussed by the mother (Mrs Michaud) and Mr Confait. The mother had offered to pay some R1,500 a month for the scholarship which had cost around R180,000 over a period of 10 years. She noted that when she received the file it was recorded that the repayment for 10 years had not been approved as normally someone was given up to five years to repay the bond.
Mrs Berlouis said Roland Michaud didn’t return home when his scholarship elapsed as he had asked for an extension and was given another two and a half years to pursue his studies to become either a heart or brain surgeon. Mrs Berlouis said that when she wrote to Mrs Michaud concerning the repayment of the bond, there was no discussion as Mrs Michaud offered straight away to give up the house which was valued at round R250,000 in exchange for the bonding repayment.
Mrs Berlouis said she remembered that Mrs Michaud told her that she had already moved out of the house as it was in a dilapidated state. Mrs Berlouis said after consultation with then Minister for Education, James Michel who consulted with Mr Hodoul, the house and land in exchange for the bond repayment was accepted and the last thing she did was to seek a letter of consentment from Mrs Michaud offering her house and which she did.
Mrs Berlouis said she recalls in 2003 to 2004 the house was still empty after it had been used as a Seychelles People’s Progressive Front (SPPF) office and her being the International School of Seychelles’ parents teachers association chairperson, they wanted to have the place as parking space.
She noted that this is the true story of the house being handed over to government in exchange for the bond payment in favour of Mrs Michaud’s son. She noted that this was a voluntary acquisition. Mrs Berlouis also noted that she learned from Mr Michaud’s testimony that his mother was forced to sign the voluntary land acquisition document and added that if it happened it was not her who forced Mrs Michaud to do so. Mrs Berlouis said that she is pretty sure the acquisition file with all the necessary documents is still with the land department if it needs to be verified.
The last witness to testify was Jean François Ferrari in relation in relation to case 001 – Dorothy Chang-him-Vital and in the hearing of August 9, 2019 when there were allegations that Mr Ferrari was identified as the person driving around in the back of a Land Rover on the day of the coup d’Etat, along with other people, looking for ‘Son’ Chang-him.
Responding to the allegation made by Georges Lefevre, Mr Ferrari said he understands and sympathises with Mr Lefevre for the pain he suffered as a result of the coup.
Mr Ferrari said he was not sited at the back of the truck on that day.
Recalling events of the coup d’Etat, Mr Ferrari said he was 17 years old at that time and that on the eve of the coup he left his home at Sans Soucis to go to the Katiolo discotheque and later the manager informed him that his dad wanted to speak to him on the phone and when he spoke to his father, the latter instructed him to return home and back to bed.
He added that he woke up early in the morning, probably from noises around the house and to later witness his father and France Albert Rene seated over the balcony looking towards Victoria. He explained that he hang around with them and witnessed some moments of the coup, some shooting and Mr Rene communicating with some people over the walkie-talkie, but he barely remembers what he was saying.
By early morning after doing a few chores at the house, Mr Ferrari said he insisted to ride with Mr Rene to his house but not any member of his family was present except for one man and he stayed at Mr Rene’s house until around mid-day. After Mr Rene left on his own, Mr Ferrari went back home. He noted that he was surprised to hear that he would have been elsewhere on that day and added that he does not recall people talking about Mr Chang-Him, his death, his shooting or recalling the sound of gunfire, as he was only at the two places on June 5, 1977.
Mr Ferrari noted that if Mr Lefevre had said he could remember on June 5, 1977 seeing him at one point behind the bags of sand at the top of the Central Police Station or probably holding a gun or at a check point on the intersection of Bel Air road, these information could have been right because he was in these places at some point on June 6, 1977. Mr Ferrari said that intellectually he was part of the coup d’Etat due to his presence in some areas but in practice he was not part of it. Being very young, he noted he was not aware it was a coup but the activities seemed interesting that they kept him awake till morning.
Mr Ferrari said that even though this whole thing is tough for his family, especially for his father who was very active in assisting in organising the coup, he contributed and voted for the setting up of the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission so that the truth comes out for the future of Seychelles.
