Ramkalawan, a priest by vocation, and well versed in the words of the holy bible, should now practice what he preaches. He should give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.
There is a general public consensus that Ramkalawan should not hesitate to repair the damage that he has done to the alliance by giving DP back its seat in the National Assembly; not because DP deserves it, but rather because they earned that seat; not because he wants to, but because the Court has ordered him to do so. This one seat belongs to DP and Ramkalawan has no right to take it away; even after he had decided to break the alliance. DP is the rightful legal owner of that one seat and this is what DP wants the Supreme Court to decide ultimately.
Both Ramkalawan and Hermine, the Speaker, have refused to comply with the Chief Justice’s order to reinstate Mr. Frank Elizabeth in the National Assembly to date, on the basis that the Chief Justice was wrong in law to make the order that he did. The Chief Justice may very well be wrong, but it is neither for Ramkalawan, nor for that matter, the Speaker, to decide this issue. No one is above the law in this country, not even the President! A British Judge once said: “Be you ever so high, the law is above you!”
For Ramkalawan and Herminie to flout the Chief Justice’s order, not only shows disrespect and contempt for the Chief Justice personally but also to the institution that he represents and heads. A person cannot take a decision by himself on whether a Court order is illegal or void and then decide whether he is going to comply with it, based on his own personal judgment as to the legality of the order.
The question which lies at the heart of the case brought by DP against Ramkalawan and Speaker Herminie for contempt of court is a fundamental one. It strikes at the very roots of the rule of law itself: does a person have a right, either at common law or under the Constitution of Seychelles to ignore or defy an order of the Supreme Court Judge on the ground that it is void, illegal or even that he has immunity, and therefore not binding on him? This is the question that the Chief Justice will have to decide when both Herminie and Ramkalawan next appear before him!
Interestingly enough, this very issue was also at the heart of the case of Roger Mancienne v/s Government of Seychelles SCA 10 of 2004. The Court of Appeal made it very clear in that case that the Chief Justice was correct to find Roger Mancienne guilty of contempt of Court after he defied the order of Judge Renaud not to publish a confidential letter in Regar newspaper. Precedent, therefore, for the DP case of compliance with a court order already exists in our jurisprudence.
If Ramkalawan and Herminie are of the opinion that the Chief Justice was wrong, an opinion they are entitled to hold, then they should challenge the order either by way of appeal or by other established legal mechanisms. In the meantime, however, the law compels both of them to comply with the order until such time that the order is reversed or stayed by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal. What would be disturbing and unacceptable is for the two persons who claim to respect the Rule of Law and believe in the principles of democracy, should ignore a Court order and get away with it. What will happen if tomorrow other people start to emulate them and refuse to comply with court orders issued by a judge who sits in authority? Would that not lead to anarchy and chaos in our society? Is the Chief Justice going to condone such blatant acts of contempt and disrespect for the institution that he heads?
In the meantime, the truth must prevail! What is the truth? The truth is that Ramkalawan and SNP agreed to give DP a seat in the National Assembly as a reward for not contesting the last election under their own name but instead agreed to join with SNP and under their banner as a united opposition to fight the powerful SPPF. This is the truth. For Ramkalawan now to arbitrarily take the seat away is not only unfair and wrong but blatantly immoral!