SPEAKER MACGREGOR: THE SILENT AUTHORITY THAT ALLOWED CRIMINAL ASSAULT ON THE CONSTITUTION

SPEAKER MACGREGOR: THE SILENT AUTHORITY THAT ALLOWED CRIMINAL ASSAULT ON THE CONSTITUTION

The Speaker of the National Assembly is being accused of gross dereliction of duty for not intervening during the unprovoked violent attack on the Leader of the Opposition by members of the police on Tuesday 3^rd October. The incident – the physical assault against the Honourable Wavel Ramkalawan by the paramilitary police in the precinct of the National Assembly while it was in session - has been described by the Leader of the Democratic Party, Mr Paul Chow, as a criminal assault on the Constitution by police.

Mr Chow, who returned from the UK earlier in the week, where he was guest of the British Conservative Party at their 2006 Annual Conference, spoke exclusively to this newspaper as he was being brought up to speed by colleagues on events taking place in Seychelles during his absence. Mr Chow said that, though far away, he was kept abreast of development in Seychelles while he was in Bournemouth and used the opportunity to appraise senior figures in the British Conservative Party of the situation in Seychelles. Mr Chow was invited as leader of the sister party of the Conservatives.

Speaking about the “riot incident” Mr Chow said that in law, the entire premises of the National Library, where the National Assembly is in session, is the sole legal responsibility of the Speaker. If anyone had the authority to call the police in the circumstances it was the Speaker of the National Assembly. This was an opportunity to demonstrate the concept of separation of powers provided for by the Constitution. The fact that the Police was called to the premises of the National Assembly by Executive Branch of the Government reinforces what the Opposition have always held to be true, that in Seychelles we are paying leap service to democracy as provided for by our Constitution.

“It is the responsibility of the Speaker, under the law, to protect all members of the legislature, regardless of political affiliation and especially to ensure that they have unfettered access to the Assembly while it is in session, which was clearly not the case on 3^rd October.” Mr Chow said.

Mr Chow quoted from the National Assembly Standing Orders 1994 – a law passed by the National Assembly on 1^st August 1994 - when he was a member, to regulate the proceedings and conduct of the Legislature, as well as from the House of Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1975 which provides penalties of imprisonment against anyone who found guilty of assaulting, obstructing, or insulting any member or officer going to and from the precinct of the Assembly Chamber.

According to the National Assembly Standing Orders 1994, the “precincts of the Assembly” includes “rooms, lobbies, galleries, courtyard, gardens and other places provided for the use of Members and officers and any passage connecting such places”. Mr Chow said that any action by the police on the steps of the entrance to the National Library building, which is in the precinct of the Assembly, should have been under the instruction of the Speaker. The police was, for all intents and purposes taking the law into their own hands and committing a criminal offence at the same time. The Speaker should have asked the crowd to disperse warning them that failure to do so would result in forcible removal by the police. Instead he condoned the action of the police. By doing so he lost the moral and legal authority to be Speaker, Chow said.

The National Assembly Standing Orders, also provides for any member of the National Assembly to report to the Assembly the circumstances which may “constitute” any offence under the House of Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1975. Clearly, the attempt by members of police to prevent Mr Ramkalawan from entering the building and then to assault him, was an offence under that Act. It is hoped that SNP Members of the Assembly will bring proceedings in the National Assembly against the police officers responsible under article 91 of the National Assembly Standing Orders, Mr Chow said, regardless which other inquiry is set up. The National Assembly, through its Speaker, must take its responsibility to protect its Members.

The whole episode places in stark perspective the role of the police, especially the paramilitary Special Police Unit (SPU) in restricting freedom of assembly and freedom of movement in Seychelles, two fundamental human rights protected under the Constitution. Mr Chow said that no effort has been made so far by the administration of the police force, to develop clear but legal procedures for the police to deal with crowds while at all time protecting individual freedoms.

The idea that the police can simply declare a gathering illegal is a violation of the right of assembly and places an agent of the state as the prosecutor, judge and jury. It also reverses the notion, that fundamental freedoms belong to the individual and not to the State, Mr Chow says. The police may in a reasonable manner, act to ensure that any assembly of citizens does not infringe the rights of other ordinary citizens going about their business (freedom of movement). Such an exercise, however, should be undertaken in a dialogue between a senior police officer in charge and those responsible for the assembly, not by brute force as a first resort. As it stands, Mr Chow said, the faithful, gathering outside a church after service, are conducting an “illegal assembly”.

Mr Chow said that he disagrees with President Michel that the “police had acted correctly and professionally” in this incident. Quite apart from the fact that the police violated the sanctity of the National Assembly and arbitrarily prevented a member from entering its premises and then assaulted him, the police tactic seems to be to use force as a first resort when faced with a crowd. This conduct is generally attributed to police forces in undemocratic states such as Zimbabwe, Chow said.

There is no evidence that the people gathering at the precinct of the National Assembly that day were a threat to law and order or to Members of the National Assembly, especially as they were being addressed by them. Nor was the crowd affecting the movement of the general public. The unrest was caused solely by the unprovoked use by the police of tear gas, batons and rubber bullets rather than by those who had gathered there peacefully.

Mr Chow welcomed the timely statement of the Bishops of the Catholic and Anglican Churches on the need for dialogue and reconciliation between the governing party and the opposition. However, Mr Chow said, President Michel must be reminded that as Head of State he speaks for the whole nation and that the State has an obligation to protect all its citizens. It is important, therefore, that the dialogue is with all the people including the police force whose job it is to protect the law abiding citizens.

The Democratic Party, Mr Chow said, calls on President Michel to take immediate steps to give full effect to the requirements of Article 168 of the Constitution which requires the State to “ensure that all broadcasting media which it owns or controls or which receive a contribution from the public fund are so constituted and managed that they may operate independently of the State and of political or other influence of other bodies, persons or political parties” as well as to ensure that they “afford opportunities and facilities for the presentation of divergent views.” Clearly, this is not the case at present, Chow said.

This can be easily achieved by modifying the Seychelles Broadcasting Corporation Act and to appoint independent people of integrity to its board to regulate and discipline the conduct of the broadcasters to ensure that there is at all times “the presentation of divergent views”.

But Mr Chow said the Democratic Party considers any law which restricts the ownership of a broadcasting media as an infringement of the freedom of speech, protected by the Constitution. However, he accepts that a law can legitimately regulate the content of the broadcast of any media for the protection of morals, national security and the dignity of individual or group. More importantly, Mr Chow said, a citizen should have a right of reply without going through a long and arduous legal process.

“We in the Democratic Party look forward to fully participate in the dialogue and to arrive to a consensus on the conduct of political activities in Seychelles, in conformity and respect of the rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Constitution” Mr Chow said.