NEXT WEEK TUNE IN YOUR RADIO AND TV

NEXT WEEK TUNE IN YOUR RADIO AND TV

Next week, from Monday 19th onwards, the nation’s airwaves – which are wholly controlled by the Government and by extension the SPPF party - will be entirely saturated by 2 major events.

One which we have become very accustomed to since the restoration of the multiparty system in 1993, is the State of the Nation address by the President of the Republic. This “custom” is in fact a constitutional obligation. Article 65 of the Constitution says that the President shall, “at the beginning of each year”, “deliver to the Assembly a message on the state of the nation”. It remains a matter of argument whether at 20th March we are still at the beginning of the year. In America the date is 20th January – unless, presumably, if it falls on a weekend.

Under our Constitution too, if the President had given seven days notice in the Gazette to dissolve the National Assembly, he would have been obliged to deliver the state of the nation message before the dissolution comes into effect. There was even a rumour circulating that Mr Michel would dissolve the National Assembly soon after he had delivered his message in order to prevent the opposition from replying. Since he has not yet given the constitutionally required seven days notice in the Gazette, this rumour is all but buried.

Of course, Mr Michel can still dissolve the National Assembly before its mandate expires in November but at a political cost. Under the Constitution a sitting President can dissolve the National Assembly only once without an obligation on his part to stand for re-election. So if Mr Michel decides to exercise this option, only a few months before the Assembly is defunct, he would be wasting a political capital, so to speak. What if, the SPPF does not come out with a majority? Equally, if Mr Michel is so confident that the SPPF will get a majority if an election is held now and the state of nation is honky dory (as we expect him to say) why not wait the full term? In politics there is no cut and run option.

The other major event which will take place next week is the inquiry, in open court, quoting the terms of reference, on “the facts and circumstances leading to and surrounding the events in Victoria on 3rd October, and in particular, the use of force by the police on that day and respect for law and order. The enquiry will also consider as appropriate, the apparent source of grievance which gave rise to the events of that day.” The judge heading the inquiry has already ruled that cameras will be allowed only for the opening. It remains to be seen if SBC will report daily on the proceedings – since the inquiry will also determine its future. After this inquiry SBC may never be the same again.

The inquiry is unprecedented in the history of Seychelles, at least under the three republics, but more that, it has been ordered by President Michel who, willingly or not, took the unprecedented step of appointing a foreign judge from a western democracy to conduct it. The Judge, Mr Michael Reilly, is from the Irish Republic and is, according to the State House communiqué, a sitting jurist with considerable experience in this sort of inquiry. The fact that the judge has decided that all the evidence must be presented in open court may have taken Mr Michel by surprise, eliciting considerable speculation that Mr Rene, as party leader is none too pleased with his decision to hold an inquiry in the first place. Presumably, Mr Rene would have preferred the Mugabe option the world has just witnessed.

The source of the grievance, (apart from the decision by the ruling SPPF to “mug” the opposition by refusing to grant SNP a radio broadcasting licence and to amend the law to prevent any judicial challenge to its decision) dates back to 1993, the inquiry judge will be told, when the Constitution of the Third Republic came into force. Article 170 (Schedule 7 – Transitional provisions) of the Constitution says, “The State shall, within twelve months of the coming into force of this Constitution, bring the Seychelles Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1992 into conformity with article 168” (of the Constitution). And Article 168 requires that any broadcasting media funded, controlled or owned by the State should be so structured as to “afford opportunities and facilities for the presentation of divergent views”. Fourteen years later, after three governments under Mr Rene and two under Mr Michel, the SBC Act remains as it was when the one-party state People’s Assembly passed the law to serve its own purpose.

One thing SBC has not done, since its existence, is to broadcast divergent views. And “divergent”, according to Thesaurus means: different, differing, deviating, conflicting, contradictory, opposing, opposite and contrary. It is hard to see how the SPPF diehards can live in that world after 30 years.