Open warfare seems to have been declared between the Chief Justice (CJ) and the Commissioner of Police (Compol) which has culminated in a showdown recently with each side standing his own ground and refusing to budge.
Some days ago Agnielle Francourt, a young remand prisoner, who gained notoriety by escaping from police custody but later gave herself up, was brought to court in the new police van which has a cage at the back to hold prisoners. Ms Francourt is heavily pregnant and her pregnancy is very visible for anyone to see. Therefore, her attorney, Mr. Basil Hoareau, complained to the Chief Justice that the authorities should have been more circumspect in the choice of vehicle to bring her client to court given her very visible disposition.
Whereupon, the Chief Justice, Mr Vivekannan Alleear, visibly upset with what he heard, raised the matter with the police officer who had accompanied the prisoner. The latter answered that he did not have any say in the matter and that the issue of transportation of prisoners was one decided upon by his superiors. The Chief Justice then informed the officer that he was going to write a letter immediately to the Commissioner of Police to complain about this issue. All this took place in open court.
After the hearing, the police officer is reported to have gone straight to the Commissioner of Police to report to him what the Chief Justice had said in open court, while he was in a meeting with senior officers. Whereupon the Commissioner of Police right there and then picked up the phone and called the Chief Justice. According to the information going around, the Commissioner of Police decided to give the Chief Justice a piece of his mind, accusing him of criticizing the police in open court. The verbal showdown ended with the Chief Justice slamming down his phone before the Police Commissioner could have the last say. The matter, however, did not come to rest there.
Some days later the Commissioner of Police decided to exact “revenge” on the Chief Justice. He apparently ordered police officer, Sub-inspector Elvis Adrienne of the traffic section, to issue a Notice Not to Use on the Chief Justice’s car whilst the latter was out of the country and he was not officially using the car. The Notice Not to Use, for the uninitiated, is a very sticky plastic sticker, which the police use, ostensibly, to immobilize a car so one cannot drive it. Usually it is stuck on the windscreen on the driver’s side. In practice, however, it does not immobilize the vehicle at all, only the mind of the driver who fears worse retribution from the police if he or she were to so much as ignore it and drive away.
Upon his return to the country, the Chief Justice was clearly livid and called all his powerful friends in government to complain about the police and to order the Commissioner to have the Notice removed. Chastened, the Commissioner of Police invited the CJ to remove the sticker and continue to use his car as is. The CJ, however, gave the Commissioner of Police a piece of his mind in the process and ordered the latter to send his police officer to remove the notice. The Commissioner of Police seemingly gave up arms and sheepishly complied with the CJ’s order.
The foregoing story serves to illustrate the way the Police Commissioner of Police – a man trained in the military under a dictatorship, is going about his task. Recently, a number of complaints have been made against the Commissioner of Police and the way he is managing the police force and enforcing the law.
For instance, he has banned all visits to people in police detention by anyone, including lawyers. This has angered many lawyers who have attempted to see their clients after 4.00 pm. The decision of the Police commissioner is unprecedented, as the Constitution protects the right of round the clock access to lawyers by detainees.
The Commissioner of Police has also started to distance himself from the ordinary police officers under his command, according to reports. Many police officers are quietly complaining that they do not have access to him to voice their complaints and concerns. His disrespect to the Chief Justice demonstrates a streak of arrogance, which is becoming more apparent by the day, according to a number of senior officers we have spoken to recently.
The police force exists by virtue of Article 159 of the Constitution. Under cross examination by Judge Riley during the public hearing on the October 2006 Incident, Gerard Waye Hive showed just how he does not possess the level of education necessary to be a competent and effective Commissioner of Police, when he could not explain what the role of the police force in Seychelles was.
The functions of the police are delimitated by the Constitution, not by State House or Maison du Peuple or anybody else. The Constitution is very clear as to what Police are there for. Article 161 says that the Police are there for: a) to maintain law and order in and preserve the internal security of Seychelles and any other area over which the Republic has proclaimed its jurisdiction; b) to prevent and detect crime in Seychelles and over any other area over which the Republic has proclaimed its jurisdiction; and c) to perform such other functions as may be prescribed by an Act. These are the sum total of the functions of our police force. When the police force or the Commissioner acts outside these strict remits they are acting outside the law.
The Constitution also sets out how, as well as who, appoints a Commissioner of Police and the extent of his or her authority over the force under his or her command. Article 160 (1) says that the Police Force shall be commanded by the Commissioner of Police who shall be appointed by the President subject to approval by the National Assembly. The same article of the Constitution also says that, while a Ministry or Department of Government may be assigned the responsibility for the organization, maintenance and administration of the Police Force, it is the Commissioner of Police who “shall be responsible for determining the use and controlling the operations of the Force in accordance with law”. No one else has that authority in law. Therefore, if Judge Riley finds that laws were broken on 3 October 2006, the buck ends with Gerard Waye-Hive. His fate, if justice is to prevail, will be decided by the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Alleear.
During his altercation with the Chief Justice, the Police Commissioner has shown blatant disrespect for the office of the Chief Justice. By ordering that a “Not to Use” sticker be placed on the latter’s car, he has clearly attempted to embarrass the Chief Justice using his position of authority. The Chief Justice is, therefore, perfectly correct to take up the matter with him as this type of conduct shows a disdain for the office of the Chief Justice.
This incident also reveals the flawed character of the man, which is important when one considers that he has to make crucial decisions not just for the internal security of the country but also for the protection of the Force and the men and women under his command.
Even after his appointment, he was regularly seen drinking at the 369 bar or the Victoria Casino. Such poor judgment is symptomatic of a flawed character not conducive to taking command of a disciplined force such as the national police.
Although the Chief Justice was the first one to have experienced the wrath of the Commissioner, now we are given to understand that he is targeting other personalities against whom he may harbour some disdain. It is the Commissioner of Police who was instrumental in pushing for the criminal prosecution of Mr. France Bonte, the erstwhile Chairman of the Constitutional Appointments Authority and Member of the Central Committee of the Seychelles People’s Progressive Front (SPPF), it is touted. Bonte, it appears, is being charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm for an incident which happened quite some months ago.
This has sent shivers down the spine of the powerfully connected, as the Commissioner is clearly showing himself not fearful of taking on the untouchables and the establishment as a whole. Although it is rumoured that the President is not happy with his overall performance, especially when testifying before Judge Riley, and is expected to replace Waye-Hive with Andre Ciseaux, this is yet to materialize.
It remains to be seen whether Gerard Waye-Hive will defy all predictions and ride the wave of controversy he has unleashed.