INTERVIEW : MRS. NICOLE TIRANT-GHERARDI-NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF
“I think it is important for the smooth operation of the legal system that a climate of mutual respect and cooperation is maintained between the Bar and the Bench.”
LNSW: First of all congratulations on your new appointment. While you are well-known in certain quarters a lot of our readers are pretty much in the dark as to who your are. So can you tell us about yourself?
NT-G: There’s not much to tell except that over the years I have become a jack of many trades!!
I read Law in England, am a member of Grays’ Inn of Court and was called to the Seychelles Bar in 1986.
Although I graduated in 1978, I did a stint in the civil service with the Ministry of Agriculture where I witnessed the introduction of the state-enterprises and the controlled economy. I later joined the A-G’s Chambers just before returning to England to complete my Bar Finals.
Upon qualification at the Council of Legal Education in July 1983, I returned to the A-G’s as State Counsel, where I completed my pupilage, did a stint at the Francis Rachel Law Centre then left Seychelles in 1987. I went back to University in France where I took a masters in civil law, dabbled in international trade promotion and came back to practice law in Seychelles in 1994. I closed my legal practice in 1999 to join the business community where I have stayed since although I have retained a keen interest in all things legal.
LNSW: We know that as the new president of the BAS you replace Mr. Boullé, is that not a hard act to follow?
NT-G: I would say it is a very hard act to follow. Mr Boullé is one of the brightest and most experienced legal minds in Victoria and a man of stature within the community. However, as a non-practising member of the bar I may be able to introduce a different perspective to many of the issues we currently face. It is my belief that new perspectives can only do good to an institution and that is what I hope to bring.
LNSW: You are a non-practicing member of the Bar. Can you tell us what that means?
NT-G: Simply put, I am fully occupied elsewhere and do not take cases which would require me to appear in Court. However, I still love the law and enjoy being asked for legal opinions on certain issues.
LNSW: Mr. Boullé had endeavoured to have a working relationship with the judiciary, what kind of relationship are you going to cultivate with the judiciary as the president of the BAS?
NT-G: I would certainly want to maintain the working relationship that Mr Boullé has established with the judiciary. I think it is important for the smooth operation of the legal system that a climate of mutual respect and cooperation is maintained between the Bar and the Bench. This is essential to reassure the public as to the quality of the justice the system provides. It is also essential that both sides fully appreciate the issues and problems being encountered by the other to find working solutions to these problems. I would like to work towards establishing a forum for effective dialogue where both sides can bring issues and deal with them as they arise instead of throwing blame on each other. I sincerely hope that the judiciary will receive this as the best way forward and give the Bar Association its full support.
LNSW: You were the Petitioner in both cases BAS brought challenging the appointment of certain judges. Can you tell us why?
NT-G: My first motivation was to see that the Constitution of Seychelles was upheld and respected in its letter and spirit. There have been in my view too many instances where the provisions of the Constitution have been sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Besides, it had become obvious that the recruitment methods were discriminating against our own nationals and that was an issue I felt very strongly about.
LNSW : You have told us that you submitted an application to the CAA for recommendation to the President to be appointed judge. Do you know why you were not appointed?
NT-G : I first submitted my application to the CAA to be considered for a position of judge in 1998. I did renew it just before the end of the previous contractual terms of the judges. However, I would only be able to speculate as to why I was not appointed and I do not believe that I can or should speculate in such matters. I really cannot say why I was not appointed. I can say though that I never received any reply whatsoever on either occasion from the CAA on my applications.
LNSW : If you were offered one magical wish to change something in the country what would be the first thing that you would change in order to democratize
NT-G : I would wish for enlightenment of the people to understand and appreciate that the roots of our democracy are set in our Constitution and that everything they have and do stems from that Constitution. Just as in our monotheist religion, there is a Supreme Being which we all respect and believe in, as laymen in our Republic, there is the Constitution which should govern our laws, our behaviour as a society and the manner in which we relate to each other. I am convinced that if we fully understood this, then we would understand our rights and obligations and because democracy to me is first and foremost the will of the people, this would enable the country to progress.
LNSW: Most prudent foreign investors would first approach members of your association prior to investing, would you say therefore that the advice given by lawyers could directly affect the flow of foreign investment into the country?
NT-G : I’m sure that any investor who wishes to place his money in any country wants not only to be able to make more money but also wants to feel that the investment he makes is safe. That safety is assured from a number of angles but the fall back is to feel that the law will take care of any situation and resolve it in equity and fairness. This is what most investors would want to be reassured of. It is therefore only natural that many investors will seek answers to such questions from those who work within the system. Ultimately, yes I do feel that the lawyers are in a position through their advice to reassure or at least put investors on their guard and may certainly influence investment decisions as a result.
LNSW : Based on what you have read and heard in the media, and your personal knowledge and experiences when you were a practicing attorney would you say that Mrs. Amesbury’s case is an isolated incident or irregularity?
NT-G : I would hesitate to give any opinion without a full appreciation of the facts involved and I am not in possession of all the facts in this matter. However, I am of the view that the law makes provision for ex-parte hearings in specific circumstances and I’m not sure that the circumstances of this case was one of them.
LNSW : Finally Mrs. Tirant, was the decision in the Regar case a death blow to democracy in Seychelles? And the second part of this last question is, what do you see as the role of the BAS if any, in keeping the torch of democracy burning or in re-igniting that torch?
NT-G : Although the decision in the Regar case may put an end to that particular newspaper, I would not call it a death blow to democracy because there are other newspapers and there is no prohibition at this stage on any new papers starting up. That being said, in my view the case has highlighted the issues which need to be considered in establishing clear rules and jurisprudence in our defamation law. It appears now that no room is being allowed for any kind of statement on those who are in positions of authority and I am not sure that that is in the spirit of the Constitution.
As for the role of the Bar Association in keeping the torch of democracy burning, I think that the lawyers have a fundamental role to play in moving the cause of democracy through the cases they bring to test the ground in a non-partisan manner. If all law stems from the Constitution, then we, as those who work with the law are in the front line to help those affected by the law to seek justice before those who are appointed to defend the Law.
In my view where the law is concerned, there should be no “them” and “us”. The law is there to protect us all and lawyers are the tools with which those who have lost protection should be able to seek protection.
LNSW : Thank you.