YULIA TIMONINA WINS LANDMARK CASE BEFORE COURT OF APPEAL

Yulia and daughter In a classic David and Goliath situation, a young Russian woman, Yulia Timonina, took on the State in a complicated legal battle and surprisingly won. In a landmark and historical decision the Court of Appeal last week quashed the decision of the Immigration Officer which had ordered Timonina to leave Seychelles by the 14th June 2007. The Immigration Department had served Timonina with a deportation order declaring her a Prohibited Immigrant on the 8th June 2007. The PI Notice was duly signed by President James Alix Michel, in his capacity as Minister of Internal Affairs. Since then President James Michel has relinquished the portfolio and appointed Vice President Joseph Belmont as Minister instead.

The statutory reason for the deportation order was that Timonina’s presence in Seychelles was inimical to the public interest. In other words, she was deemed a threat to the national security of the country. At the time, Yulia Timonina was working as a Group and Incentive Executive at Creole Holidays, a company owned by Seychellois millionaire businessman, Mr. Joseph Albert, and had a valid GOP. The GOP was due to expire on 25th July 2007. Her lawyer, Mr. Frank Elizabeth, had written to the Minister, pleading with him to reconsider his decision and to give adequate reason why the deportation order had been issued against his client as she had not done anything wrong whilst in Seychelles. All representations made to the authorities fell on deaf ears and in desperation, Timonina filed a case before the Supreme Court seeking an order to quash the decision of the Minister. Ugandan Judge, Duncan Gaswaga, hearing the initial application, shockingly dismissed Timonina’s case in a summary manner. Her lawyer then lodged an appeal against the decision of Gaswaga to the Court of Appeal and was successful. Justice Jacques Hodoul, sitting as a Single Judge of the Court of Appeal, gave Timonina a lifeline when he granted an injunction against the Government, ordering them not to deport Timonina until the Courts in Seychelles have dealt with her case. Justice Hodoul also held that Judge Gaswaga was wrong to dismiss Timonina’s case which was filed before the Supreme Court against the order of deportation.

Timonina then simultaneously filed cases before the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court alleging that the order of deportation contravenes her constitutional rights under article 25 of the Constitution which provides that: “Every person lawfully present in Seychelles has a right…not to be expelled from Seychelles.” Timonina’s lawyer also argued that the Minister acted contrary to law when he failed to give adequate and sufficient reason for his decision. It is that point which, the Court of Appeal ruled, tipped the scale in Timonina’s favour. The Court ruled thus on the point: “Having satisfied ourselves that no sufficient reason was afforded to the Appellant, the requirements under section 19(1) (i) of Cap 93 was therefore not fully complied with. We do realize that the Respondents attempted to use Cap 93 - in the absence of any post 1993 law- to the best of their ability. It may have worked in many other situations but, in this particular case, the limitations were apparent. Accordingly we quash the decision of the Immigration Officer for non compliance with Section 19(1) (i) of Cap 93.”

Timonina’s appeal emanates from the decisions of Judge Perrera who had initially dismissed her cases both before the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The problem, it seems, is the Government’s refusal to abide to the provisions of the 1993 Constitution which had implicitly ordered the Government to pass a law after the 1993 Constitution to provide for the removal from Seychelles of persons lawfully present in Seychelles. Article 25 (5) of the Constitution expressly provides that: “A law providing for the lawful removal from Seychelles of persons lawfully present in Seychelles shall provide for the submission, prior to removal, of the reasons for the removal and for review by a competent authority of the order of removal.” For the past 15 years the SPPF government has failed to pass such a law and has been quite happy to apply the Immigration Decree which was passed in 1981 before the Constitution was promulgated.

Despite the landmark judgment, the Immigration did not hesitate to ask Timonina to leave the country on Monday 18th August 2008 because she has no legal status here. In a sick letter delivered to her on Thursday 14th July at 4.00pm, Philip Bacco writing on behalf of the Principal Secretary, Marie-Ange Hoareau, conveyed the following cruel message to Timonina:

“I wish to inform you that you do not hold any valid permit to remain in the Republic. In this respect you are hereby requested to make necessary arrangements for you to leave the Republic on Monday 18th August 2008.”

Letter from Immigration Department to Yulia Timonina.

Timonina even tried to marry her baby’s father in 2007 but permission was refused by the Civil Status because of her PI status. She even challenged the decision of the Civil Status in the Constitutional Court but was unsuccessful as Judge Perrera again dismissed her petition. In the meantime, Timonina has given birth to a beautiful baby girl to a Seychellois father. She said that both her child and her child’s father are Seychellois and she wants to stay with her family in Seychelles.