Valabhji case |05 July 2023
Supreme Court to rule on three-month adjournment request
Chief Justice Rony Govinden will today give a ruling on whether to grant an adjournment for a period of three (3) months to allow the Valabhji couple, Laura and Mukesh, to have access to legal fees, following an order granted by the Court to release funds in their Singapore Accounts.
Yesterday, France Bonte, counsel for the two, addressed the Court arguing in favour of a three-month adjournment.
Mr Bonte argued that since the order, the funds have not yet been obtained, largely due to the Anti-Corruption Commission Seychelles (ACCS)’s obfuscation, and employing all tactics to restrain the accused from accessing these funds.
He stated this has had the effect of hindering the accused’s right to access to legal representation, as they have not been able to pay counsel from the global firm Kobre & Kim. Consequently, counsel has not been instructed to appear on their behalf pending such payment.
Kobre & Kim’s Mr Zaiwalla addressed the Court via zoom, expanding on behalf of the Valabhji couple that this application is in line with Article 6(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights which addresses the right to a fair trial, and states that any person charged with a criminal offence has the right, among other things, to have adequate time for the preparation of their defence; and to defend themselves through legal assistance of their own choosing.
He added that by refusing this application, the court will deprive the accused of this right which is widely observed in most jurisdictions, which Seychelles is no exception.
Replying to Mr Zaiwalla’s representations, the Attorney General’s representative, Steven Powles refuted the argument that the Attorney General’s Office has any knowledge of the contents of the Constitutional Petition purportedly filed on behalf of the accused.
He also expressed the ACCS’ disavowal of any assertion that it is in any way responsible for non-release of the funds, but that if anything, the Valabhji couple themselves were responsible for any delays to the funds being paid.
Mr Powles also wondered on the reasonableness of the sum of £3.4 million being proper for fees in the circumstances.
The prosecution further argued that, be it as it may, should the Court deem it fitting to allow such adjournment, it recommends that the trial begin in mid-August as three months is too long.
Should Counsel for accused be unable to attend, allowing junior counsel to stand in for them would be more reasonable given the time that has lapsed already.
Judiciary press release/Patsy Canaya