Troukler

Will President  Michel  ever Make Reilly’s Report Public?

“To be or not to be” that is the Question according to the great Shakespeare. President Michel, it is said according to his Principle Secretary Mr. Jean Paul Adam, who has great difficulty speaking Creole ( a la ‘K’), and the Seychelles Nation of 31st October, Wednesday this week, promised to make public in its entirety the report from Judge Michael Reilly on the events of the 3rd of October, 2006. The President, it is said, made this statement after a copy of the report, made in Ireland, because that is where it was compiled, delivered personally to him at State House by the Irish judge.

This is one promise President Michel will have to abide by; forget for a minute all the broken promises since being elected to the presidency. This is a promise made to a judge, albeit outside a court of law. Perjury is perjury no matter where it is committed, in court or outside; one can go to prison for lying to a judge. President Michel got away with it when he promised under oath, so to speak, before the people of Seychelles on National Television, not to devalue the local currency, which he has done; “devaluation”, in spite of his promise that it will harm the most vulnerable in society. Michel, it seems, is in the business of making the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. Prices in the shops he does not care how high it gets, concessions to the rich he continues to give regardless.

In all honesty, Troukler does not trust anything Irish, let alone a book of 119 pages written in Irish or Ireland for that matter. This cannot be a true 3rd of October GUINESS BOOK of record. The nearest thing Irish I have ever gone near is an ice cold pint of liquid gold brewed in Dublin. Once they nearly blew-up my house in London and I was not even involved in their fights with the Jerries. Based on their violent history they can well see some commonsense in the events of ‘Black October’. There is a strong possibility that the judge and his team will sit on the 3rd of October fence in an attempt at pleasing both sides, the “badies” and “badess”, birds of a feather.

Judge Reilly gave us a hint of what is to come when he said that in order  to avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and in the interest of efficiency, just 80 or so witnesses were called to give evidence in spite of having had statement from 170 potential witnesses. We would have thought that efficiency demands that you cross-examine a maximum number of witnesses. It did not happen; if the report does not meet with the expectation of the general public, Judge Reilly would have dealt a similar blow, exactly like 3rd of October, a deadly blow, to our evolving democracy still in its infancy. True to his words, Shakespeare would have spoken from the grave once again….