Chief Justice Compromised

HAS THE CHIEF JUSTICE COMPROMISED THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY?

This newspaper has obtained evidence that the Chief Justice of Seychelles, Vivekanand Alleear, claimed at least two privileges from the government in a manner which jeopardizes the independence of the Judiciary, one of which directly involves the application of justice in Seychelles.

The first and most damaging evidence which this newspaper has concerns one of the children of the Chief Justice – Dara Alleear - who has never lived in Seychelles nor is he a citizen of Seychelles. Yet on 25th April 2005, according to documents in our possession, the Seychelles Ministry of Education paid £11,075 to the City University of London, for Dara Alleear to complete his Bar Exam.

If this is a scholarship then Dara Alleear does not qualify to receive any sponsorship from the Seychelles Government since he is not a Seychellois and did not attend school in the Seychelles. Furthermore, unlike the Seychellois students who are bonded to return to the Seychelles upon the completion of their studies and if they do not do so court action is instituted against their guarantors, Dara Alleear has not returned to the Seychelles to give back to the Seychelles what it had invested in him.

The payment to the UK institution was made while James Michel was President of Seychelles. From the perspective of the Chief Justice this is an important favour done to him by the Michel administration – and clearly not a perk of office. It should be noted that all of this has taken place in the year James Michel has said “he has a heart for every Seychellois”.

Whilst the S.P.P.F Government has been sending Seychellois students to Universities in India, Mauritius, Russia, amongst others, claiming that it is too costly to send them to U.K and other countries where their qualifications would be recognised and accepted worldwide, the Government of Seychelles was paying for the Bar Exam of the son of the Chief Justice, Vivekanand Alleear.

The other evidence in the possession of this newspaper concerns an incident in which the Chief Justice implored a government official not to prosecute one of his business associates who had broken the import control regulations. The evidence we have confirms rumours that have been rife in Seychelles since Alleear was appointed Chief Justice that he has been conducting numerous business activities on the side while holding one of the three most important Constitutional positions in the country.

In March 2004 a trading concern owned by Alleear received a consignment of chewing gum from Mauritius. Customs determined that the goods, which had arrived without an import permit, had violated import control regulations. In ordinary circumstances, the violator would be prosecuted and the goods confiscated and sold off by the government, especially if the violator was identified as a known opposition supporter.

Rather than let justice take its course, Alleear wrote a letter to the director of Price Control and Import, Mrs Raymonde Course, on the Chief Justice’s Chambers letterhead appealing to the lady for leniency claiming that the chewing gums will not be put on sale but rather “would be given to Court staffs when they have a special function organised at their homes.”

Alleear claimed in his letter that he had told Mrs course in an earlier telephone conversation that he had already sold the business to a Mrs Miranda Esparon but that his brother, who obviously was not living Seychelles, had sent the goods not knowing that he had already sold the business. Yet the Chief Justice seems to have undermined this excuse when he pleaded with Mrs Course in the letter “I also make the solemn promise to you that never again I will import anything for sale by Mrs. Miranda Esparon.” At the time of going to press it is not known how many members of staff of the Supreme Court have so far organised special functions since March 2004, and if they benefited from the chewing gums.

The Judiciary, along with the executive and the legislative, are the cornerstones of our constitution. The constitution provides that the “judiciary shall be independent and be subject only to this constitution and the other laws of Seychelles.” In other words the judges of the Supreme Court, the Justices of Appeal and other members of the judiciary, in discharging and exercising their judicial power should not be subject to the control of any one, be it the President or the Ministers.

If the Chief Justice sought such favours and the government obliged, then the question which begs an answer is this: Is the Chief Justice not compromising his position as head of the judiciary?

The judiciary is one of the pillars of our democracy and according to the doctrine of separation of powers, it should remain and act independently of the Executive and the Legislative. By accepting favours from the Executive is the Chief Justice not compromising that very same independence that he has sworn to uphold?