The Guy Pool Trial
“I DO HAVE SOME FAIRLY STRONG FEELINGS AGAINST CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE INDIAN COMMUNITY” SAYS ALBERT RENE
This week Albert Rene answers questions about his principles, his integrity and his aversion to the Indian Community. He is asked by the prosecutor if he has ever stated the following in a speech that: “If I want a woman I take her?” He answers in the negative. The prosecutor then asked him “Who is this Geva and what is her connection with you?” He answers “she is the woman with whom I intend to get married. She has been previously married. She’s divorced. I’ve been previously married”. Rene who was clearly annoyed by the questions put to him by the prosecutor had Kapila intervened at several instances to save him the embarrassment. Although Rene expressed strong feelings on the issue of free access to the beaches by the people of Seychelles he has today clearly done an about turn and changed his views since several hotels are currently being constructed all over the island preventing Seychellois from getting access to some of the most beautiful beaches in Seychelles. His answers to the questions asked clearly shows that Rene has changed his views over a lot of issues on a national level. For instance, he is quoted to have said. “I am in principle against all violence because I believe that violence breeds more violence and very often violence results in miseries and misfortunes which should at all cost be avoided but I do think that there can be situations in this world where violence is justified”. The coup d’etat of 1977 shows that Rene is not averse to using violence in order to achieve his aim. His personal Machiavellian Philosophy seems to be that the end justifies the means…
RENE SAYS: POOL INNOCENT
Guy Pool, the accused in the Reef Hotel Bomb trial is not guilty, according to the Seychelles People’s United Party leader, Mr. Albert Rene.
Mr. Rene said this in court yesterday while being cross-examined by Prosecution Counsel, Quinn. He said “I believe he is not guilty because of the confession which alleges that on February 13th I was with the accused and that I showed him how to make bombs and that I transported him in my car. I happen to know this is untrue”.
NOTE
Mr. Rene said he knew about this on Tuesday August 1st, the day Pool’s said to have made the confession. He said on that day at 10.30 a.m. while he was in court he received a phone call from Mrs. Geva Adam, a woman to whom he hopes to get married, and she asked him to come up to the Teacher Training College at Mont Fleuri. “I went up there,” Mr. Rene contined, “and she told me she had found a note in her car stating that I and the other politicians would be arrested and that my house would be searched that evening. “At noon I went to the police station with Mr. Valabhji to see Pool and his sister Daphne and Mr. Ashford told me I had no right to see my clients. Only Mr. Valabhji was allowed to see them. “At 5 p.m. my house at L’Exile, my house at Plaisance and an old house which belong to my parents and the SPUP office were searched. “And on Friday, when one Rene Vidot came out of jail I realised how I was to be treated as a result of what he told me”. Mr. Quinn told Mr. Rene that on that Tuesday Pool was not his client and and he answered that he and Mr. Valabhji had been briefed by Pool’s relatives, but on the previous day because of commitments in court, he had told Mr. Valabhji to appear alone when Pool and his sister went before the magistrate. As far as he was concerned, he added, they were still his clients when Mr. Ashford told him he could see them. He said he has now withdrawn from the case. He considered himself an interested party.
WITHNESSES\
Mr. Quinn also asked Mr.Rene if he was not taking a great interest in witnesses concerned in the case. He replied that he was and he had contacted several people who could give evidence for the defence, including one Mr. Yvon Bastienne, because of the serious allegations made against him. “I have much more interest in the case than Mr. Ashford and Mr. Wen Yam,” he told the court. “Furthermore I believe that the original intention of the prosecution was not to have Guy Pool in the dock but me.” Earlier Mr. Quinn had asked Mr. Rene if he respected private property and he replied that he had, provided the owner had not got it by some crooked means.
TRESSPASS
Quinn: “Did you say at a public meeting at Port Glaud in October 1971 : Wherever you go you see tresspass signs. If you see that some of these tresspass signs have been removed , know that I was behind it”. Rene: “I can’t recollect having said it at that meeting. But is is possible I may have said it in connection with trespass signs forbiding people access to beaches. And I see that recently the government has followed my example.”
Quinn: Did you further say : “Perhaps you don’t know, perhaps the police themselves don’t know, but when tresspass signs dissapear I have something to do with it”.
Rene: “I would have expressed my belief that the people of
Quinn: “Can’t a person who owns property put trespass signs on it?”
Rene: “I believe that people should not trespass for unlawful purposes. But I honestly believe that estate owners who forbid the public from crossing a short stretch of land to get to the beach are themselves committing an act which I consider wrong”.
Q. Short of evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you say “if this law is against justice and the people of
A. I can’t recollect myself saying that. Which law are you referring to.
Q. You should know, you made it?
A. I can’t remember making the speech. In answering to these questions I can only answer about the likelihood of making those statements. I can’t see the likelihood of me having made such a statement.
Q. What are your feeling towards the Indian Community in this country?
A. I have no feeling against the community. I do have some fairly strong feeling against certain members of the Indian community. For instance those Indians who keep on transferring their money away from
Q. Would you include Suleman Adam?
A. I would.
Q. He is the owner of Adam Moosa?
A. He is the senior partner of Adam Moosa.
Q. That was the place that was partly blown up by a bomb on the morning of 14th February, 1972?
A. As far as I could see on the morning that the explosion had taken place the premises of Adam Moosa’s was not blown up but only a little petrol shed which stood between Adam Moosa and Dhanjee and in which Adam Moosa usually kept its petrol.
Q. It was Moosa’s petrol shed that you saw destroyed?
A. Moosa’s then empty the petrol shed.
Q. Fortunately empty?
A. Since the day before.
Q. How do you know?
A. The man who emptied it came and told me.
Q. Why should he tell you?
A. I do not know why he came and told me but he did say that he found it strange that petrol should have been removed the day before.
Q. On 13th February you knew that if a bomb was placed there it would not do very much damage?
A. No.
Q. The petrol being removed would help to keep down the damage?
A. Very much so.
Q. When did the man tell you that the petrol had been removed?
A. The day afer the explosion.
Q. If the petrol had been there it would have been a more serious damage?
A. It depends on how much petrol.
Q. On 9th April, 1972 at Esplanade did you make another speech?
A. During the strike?
Q. Yes between 10.15 and 11.05 a.m.?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you say “you know that in this country the majority of the Indian community is against us. This is very fortunate?
A. Yes.
Q. “Because they will have to pay dearly”?
A. Yes I said that.
Q. In chief you mentioned one Geva?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is this Geva and what is her connection with you?
A. She is the woman with whom I intend to get married. She has been previously married. She is divorced. I’ve been previously married.
Q. In fact you are stilll married?
Mr. Kapila: My friend should justify his question.
Witness: I don’t mind answering. I am married and I have divorce proceedings in court.
Q. Would you say you are a man of principle?
A. I think so.
Q. On 25th October, 1971 did you make a speech at Port Glaud?
A. I don’t think so, but it’s possible.
Q. One morning at 9.45 to 11 a.m. and you were speaking about non-Seychellois owning land in this place?
A. I don’t remember a meeting in the morning in 1971. I have made meetings pre-election in the morning.
Q. Do you remember saying “nothing will stop me. I do not care what people are saying”?
A. It’s something I’m likely to say but I can’t remember saying it at Port Glaud in the morning in 1971.
Q. “If I want a woman I take her”?
A. No.
Q. “In
A. Probably if I said it any any meeting I must have qualified it by saying that someone was going to sell it.
Q. About a woman if she is willing to be taken”?
A. I don’t think I’ve said so at a political meeting. If I have said it at any other occasion it would have implied her willingness.
Q. Do you have respect for private property?
A. I think so. What do you mean by private property.
Q. I’m asking you, property belonging to somebody else?
A. I would say yes provided that this person did not get it by some crooked means.
Q. Did you say at that same meeting at Port Glaud “wherever you go you see trespass signs. If you see that some of these trespass signs have been removed know that I was behind it”?
A. I can’t recollect saying that at that meeting.
Q. Have you ever said it?
A. But it is possible that I may have said that in connection with trespass signs forbiding people access to beaches and I see that very recently the Government has followed my example.
Q. Did you also say “perhaps you don’t know maybe the police themselves don’t know but when a tresspass sign disappears I have something to do with it”?
A. I may have used those words but not at that meeting. I can’t recollect at all.
Q. Would you express the same sentiment in different language elsewhere?
A. I would have expressed my belief that the people of Seychelles should not be prevented from getting access to their beaches and that if I have the opportunity I should not hesitate to remove a trespass sign.
Q. Whether it is a lawful sign or not?
A. I don’t understand what you mean by lawful in this connection.
Q. A person who owns a property can’t be put a trespass sign on it?
A. I believe that people should not trespass on other people’s land for unlawful purpose but I honestly believe that if an estate owner forbide members of the public to cross a small stretch of land to get to the beach are themselves committing an act which I consider wrong.
Q. So you are prepared to take the law in your own hands?
A. In this respect I will consider this as part of the struggle to change the law.
Q. Here on oath you are saying that you are prepared to break the law to change it?
A. What I’m saying is that I am prepared to commit minor infringements of unjust cause in order that they may come to the notice of the public and in order that the Government may take steps to correct them.
Q. You say that you are willing to commit minor infringments of the law for the purpose mentioned?
A. Yes.
Q. You mean what you call minor infringements of the law?
A. In the circumstances I would be the only judge to decide whether it is minor or serious.
Q. In respect of what you call minor infringements of the law you are willing to take the law into your hands?
A. I subject myself to the necessary punishment which this law inflicts in order to demonstrate that it is unjust e.g. I would call over that stretch of land myself without causing any damage.
Q. Except to destroy the trespass sign?
A. No, in that I would be prosecuted and it would come out or I will remove the trespass sign.
Q. And destroy it?
A. To destroy it would be too much effort.
Q. At this same meeting did you say “all trespass signs that will appear in
A. I would not construct a phrase like that at all.
Q. Did you say that?
A. Yes.
Q. You say it would be too much effort for yourself to destroy a trespass sign but you would get someone else to do it for you?
A. I would not ask anybody to do it for me. The only purpose for my infringement the law would be to demonstrate and I would do it myself.
Q. How many times have you broken the law in the furtherance of your aims?
A. Very difficult question to answer.
Q. How many times?
A. I can’t say that I remember having done it or not having done it. I believe once I held a meeting impromptu somewhere without having sought the necessary permission.
Q. How many trespass signs have you removed?
A. None.
Q. You talk a lot but don’t take any action?
A. This is correct in a certain way because as I have mentioned my purpose is to demonstrate that if something is in my view unjust, wrong and more often than not I find that Government listens to what I say and copies it.
Q. I suggest to you that’s not true i.e. Government does not follow what you say?
A. An example of Government following what I say is the trespass sign and there are many others.
Q. On 9th April, 1972 did you make a speech at the Esplanade?
A. During the strike.
Q. Yes.
A. Yes I did. I think it was in April, 1972.
Q. Did you say this “I want to say that if the
A. I can’t remember using the exact expression. I remember discussing this matter and stating we would struggle.
Q. You did not say the
A. Not that expression.
Q. What language did you speak in?
A. Creole.
Q. At the same speech did you say “when you prevent somebody from talking to workers or give him the opportunity to meet his brothers, the workers will take their knives and cut down all the lime trees”?
A. I may have said that. By that I would mean that if you deny these rights to the workers and the logical result would be that they would take things into their own hands.
Q. You were speaking to the workers themselves?
A. Yes in the hope that Government would listen.
Q. In efffect you were encouraging them to take their knives and cut down the lime trees?
A. No, I was in fact encouraging Government to save the workers from doing that.
Q. But had the workers cut down any lime trees before this speech was made?
A. I believe they had cut few.
Q. If they had why was it necessary to tell the Government?
A. I believe it was necessary in order to save further cuttings.
Q. Did you tell the workers not to cut down the lime trees.
A. In that meeting? I can’t remember. I may have told them.
Q. If you are a law abiding citizen and legal adviser to the Union, head of a political party you should instruct the workers not to destroy the property?
A. Why should I intstruct the workers.
Q. Because you were speaking to them?
A. I did not think it was necessary. I thought it was better for Government to talk to them.
Q. It was your duty to tell them not to cut down the lime trees?
A. I consider it my duty to tell Government why the lime trees had been cut in order that Government may talk with the workers but the talk here had nothing to do with the lime trees. I mean to discuss their problems.
Q. You didn’t think it was your duty to tell workers not to destroy private property?
A. I didn’t think it was my duty to tell them not to cut the lime trees.
Q. On 26th March, 1972 at
A. I can’t recollect.
Q. Did you say “If they want to arrest us let them do so”?
A. This is something I’m likely to have said one time or another but I can’t recollect saying it at that meeting.
Q. And you went on and on “but this will not stop violence here in this country”?
A. I might have said that but I don’t remember if it was at that meeting. I don’t deny saying if they arrest people purely because they are your opponents that this in itself will stop violence occuring in
Q. Did you ever in a speech refer to the Americans before independence?
A. Probably.
Q. Did you say “they wrote that a person has the right to use violence for his freedom”?
A. I probably said it, yes. I can’t remember saying that particular phrase but I have on several ccasions referred to the American declaration of independence where the word violence can be used to obtain one’s freedom.
Q. You agree with that sentiment?
A. I am in principle against all violence because I believe that violence breeds more violence and very often violence results in miseries and misfortunes which should at all cost be avoided but I do think that there can be situations in this world where violence is justified.
Q. Do you consider that violence was justified in
A. Not on 13th February or now. One of the main purposes of many of my speeches have been to prevent a situation form arising in Seychelles where violence will come because I believe that violence comes by itself as a result of conflicting forces where there is no way out.
Q. Reference to the speech on 13th February you said “but I am telling them the day this Government sees a man like me come on this square and defy it sending it to hell with its law this Government should realise that before doing so I have assessed their situation 10 times”?
A. I did not use these words?
Q. Did you say something like that?
A. Not to that effect. I did not say these words with that meaning.
Q. You didn’t say “sending it to hell with its law”?
A. No.
Q. You remember you are on oath?
A. Yes.
Q. There is evidence that you said these things, this evidence could be produced?
A. I’m speaking the truth.
Q. Did Commander Leckey of Scotland Yard approach you at any time in your office?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he ask you what you meant when you said in your speech of 13th February “the war is on”?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you answer him “it means what it said, the war against the Government is on?
A. Yes.
Q. “Including violence”?
A. No, if Mr. Leckey said that it is not true. I never mentioned violence to him.
Q. So you deny saing the words “including violence”?
A. I do.
Q. And that your answer was “it means what it said, the war against the Government is on”?
A. Yes and we talked for a long time, as long as I’ve been talking here.
A.G.: In view of the witness answer I may be making an application to call rebuttal evidence at the end of the defence case. I would like the defence to intimate if they will be objecting or not.
Mr. Kapila: I will answer to that when the application is made.
A.G.:
Q. You did refer about your conversation to Commander Leckey in a speech on 9th April, 1972 at the Esplanade?
A. I can’t recollect but I may have done so.
Q. And there you told a completely different version from what you have said here?
A. I can’t recollect what I said exactly.
Q. Did you make a speech on 12th April, 1972 and the workers marched and came to the Esplanade?
A. I thought that was the meeting being referred to during the strike. I remember making one speech during that period and the one I recollect was after the march which ended up in the Esplanade. I do not remember everything I said.
Q. Did you say “the machine guns they have got in the police amoury they can come and spray us with?”
A. Yes I may have said that they can come and spray us with the armouries. I don’t deny having said the substance of this.
Q. Did you continue “I am saying now they are not the only ones who have machine guns”?
A. I can’t recollect using the expression. If I remember correctly this machine gun talk I seem to remember having said something about the British bringing in force or weapons in the country and again referring to the historical fact that this has never solved any problem. History has taught those of us who read a lesson that when an administering colonial power builds up a weapon and more and more weapons the result is that some people get weapons from other sources.
Q. Why is it necessary to tell the workers that?
A. I have always felt the duty of a politician is to express one’s feeling in public to the working class for which S.P.U.P. stands. I would like to express that by working class, I do not mean the low paid workers as it so often implies but all those who have to work for a living no matter how high one’s salary is.
Q. You must admit that quite a large number of the working class voted for the S.D.P.?
A. Very few.
Q. Are you quite sure of that?
A. Yes.
Q. You saw the votes?
A. No. One does not have to see to know how people voted in general.
Q. When was the first time you heard of the explosion at Moosa’a shop?
A. Sometime between 1 and 1.30 a.m.
Q. Where were you at the time?
A. At Chez Nous.
Q. Is Chez Nous near the Reef Hotel?
A. I would say about 3 miles or 2 miles.
Q. Did you hear the explosion at the Reef Hotel?
A. No.
Q. When did you first hear about it?
A. I first heard of the Reef Hotel explosion at about 6 to 6.15 a.m. the next morning.
Q. From whom did you hear it?
A. From a maid.
Q. Do you know who is responsible for explosions?
A. No.
Q. If you did know would you tell?
A. Yes.
Q. Who would you tell?