Letters to the Editor

Foreign Judges Have Nothing to Lose

Sir - I should be very grateful if you would publish this letter as an article in your esteemed News Paper.

I am referring to the Civil appeal brought by the Editor of Regar against the decision taken by Judge Ranjan Perera in a civil suit against the Editor of Regar brought by Mr. Lousteau Lalanne the Chief Executive Officer of S.T.B. for defamation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the decision taken by Judge Ranjan Perera in favour of the Appellant, to the disappointment of Mr. France Bonte who was then not only the Attorney for the Respondent but also the Chairman of the CAA, the powerful body that recommends the appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court in Seychelles.

Mr. Francis Macgregor may have for the last 30 years been a member of the Central Committee of the ruling party and as speaker of the National Assembly - he may have shown affiliation with the members of the Central Committee of S.P.P.F.

Since Mr. Macgregor resigned from the S.P.P.F Central Committee and has accepted his appointment as President of the Country’s highest court, the Court of Appeal, I personally doubt that Mr. Macgregor at the age of 57 would want to render any favour to any former members of his former party.  He has nothing to lose should he wish to remain impartial as the President of the Court of Appeal.

Let us face the facts.  Foreign Judges have nothing to lose if their judgment lacks the impartiality that is required from the judiciary, for the simple reason that they came here and will be leaving at the end of their term. Whereas for Seychellois Judges they have much to lose if impartiality in their judgment is lacking as they are here to stay and they would have to face the people of Seychelles, for any of their wrong doings.

When I filed a civil appeal against the decision taken by Judge C.C. Amerasinghe a Sri Lankan in my civil suit little did he know that the Nigerian President of the Court of Appeal and his two assistant judges from Ghana and Mauritius were guests of the Respondent living in his luxurious Hotel and Resorts in Seychelles where they were well provided for by the Respondent.  Daily contact between the Respondent and the Justice of the Court were unavoidable.  This is a privilege which the appellant did not share with the Respondent.

On the day of the verdict after being served a nice lunch by the Respondent before going to Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and his two assistants who have been regular guests of the Respondent took less than a minute to convince me that I had no case against the Respondent and therefore dismissed my appeal without cost.  That was as good thing at least, to save taxpayer’s money.

I have once witnessed a Referee being suspended for taking part in a Football match because he had been seen talking to a player of the other side before the match.

There are laws that all umpires have to comply with, I don’t see why these laws are not applied in our Judiciary.  In my case I believe that the Court of Appeal failed to abide to their Code of Ethics.

The big question that I have been asking myself is; did the President of the Court of Appeal and his two assistants take the trouble to preside over my appeal or did they come to court with the verdict which was to be in favour of the Respondent before presiding on the appeal case.

Injustice never goes stale when the situation gets better and the credibility of our Justice System is in the hands of our indigenous Seychellois.  I may one day be granted a new trial.  I will patiently wait for that to come.

An Appellant

THE MOST VULNERABLE AND THE MOST GULLIBLE

Sir, I refer to the article – “Is Danny Misleading the Business Community or the National Assembly?” in your 12 October issue in which you quote the Minister of Finance as saying “Minister Faure pointed out that it is the Government’s policy to protect the most vulnerable in society.”  How interesting that after 31 years under the absolute rule of SPPF there are still so many “vulnerable” members in our society that needs protecting from the vagaries of the economy. The irony is that today, the SPPF is resorting to measures to protect the “most vulnerable” members of the society from their misguided and catastrophic economic policies. Is it far fetched to assume that the most vulnerable are synonymous with the most gullible who have  swallowed the myth that the SPPF is the party of the people, for the people?

Jean Guillaume

October 19, 2007
Copyright 2007: Seychelles Weekly, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles