Editorial
In the spirit of the constitution
In a statement received by this newspaper from Mr. Gaby Hoareau, the member of the CAA nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, he implores President Michel “pour lanmour Sesel” to appoint the righteous, tolerant, non-violent and peace-loving Bishop French Chang-Him as Mr. Bonte’s replacement as Chairman of the C.A.A. The fact that Mr Hoareau has taken the unprecedented step to break with established practice and bring this matter to public attention is welcomed.
In his statement, Mr Hoareau openly criticizes his colleague, Mrs. Marlene Lionnet, the other member appointed by the President of the Republic, for having uncritically complied with President Michel’s intent to appoint Jeremie Bonnelame, whose appointment he feels will violate Articles 139(2) and 140(3) of the Constitution as well as the spirit of the Constitution.
Article 139(2) stipulates that, “Subject to this Constitution, the Constitutional Appointments Authority shall not, in the performance of its functions, be subject to the decision or control of any person or authority.” By being prepared to accept the suggestion or otherwise of a candidate for the chairmanship of such an important institution Mrs Lionnet has made the tail wags the dog so to speak. She is violating not only the letter of the Constitution but also its spirit. President Michel, as one of the signatories of our Constitution, is not only complicit in these violations but also has brought the Office of the President of the Republic into disrepute in the process. To understand the issue, let us examine what the Constitution provides?
Article 140 (1) sets out in clear detail how the CAA is constituted. First, it says, “The President and the Leader of the Opposition shall each appoint one member.” It is clear that the Constitution intended to give both the Executive and the Legislature the singular responsibility from the beginning to influence the appointment. The Constitution does not mandate any political party this responsibility, although it is understood that party politics may influence these two constitutional offices. But who these two persons who occupy these posts will appoint as members of the CAA, must have the minimum credentials set out in Article 141 of the Constitution, which says that, apart from being citizens of Seychelles, the persons to be appointed should a) have held judicial office in a court of unlimited original jurisdiction and b) is of proven integrity and impartiality who has served with distinction in a high office in the Government of Seychelles or under this Constitution or in a profession or a vocation.
Once the persons who occupy the post of President of the Republic and the post of Leader of the Opposition have made their appointments, the Constitution says that these two appointees shall, “within 21 days of their appointment, by agreement, appoint a third member who shall also be the Chairman of the Authority”. That third member, the Constitution says, must have the same credentials as the other two appointees. It is clear from Mr Hoareau’s statement that his colleague, Mrs Lionnet did not bother to consult him in suggesting the name of Mr Jeremie Bonnelame, or if she did, did not give due consideration to his objections or his own nomination.
The escape clause used by Mr Michel to influence the appointment of the Chairman of the CAA is the same one which President Rene before him used to engineer the appointment of the very political SPPF official, Mr France Bonte, in violation of the spirit of the Constitution. This escape clause is Article 140(2) which says that “where the two members of the Constitutional Appointments Authority …are unable to agree on the appointment of the third member and Chairman of the Authority, the two members shall … propose a list of not less than two and not more than three candidates … to the President … and the President shall appoint one of the candidates proposed as member and Chairman of the authority”. This clause can only work if the process is honourable. President Rene has dishonoured this process by violating the spirit of the Constitution. And now it appears President Michel – his worthy successor, is following in his footsteps. This is shameful and disgraceful as well as despicable since Michel, like Rene, are signatories to the Constitution. Perhaps we cannot expect more from them since they were prepared to use violence to overthrow our nascent constitutional democracy in 1977.
As admirable as Mr. Hoareau’s stance is, it is feared that it is too little and too late in the day to inject public confidence in the C.A.A as it is currently established. Perhaps we should start all over again, starting with a frank and open dialogue between Mr Michel, who occupies the post of President and Mr Ramkalawan, who occupies the post of Leader of the Opposition, bearing in mind the spirit of the Constitution.