ALL the Presidents who succeeded President Rene knew of the existence of the Armoury at Morne Blanc, testified Mr. Mukesh Valabhji in his defence at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, as did May De Silva, Commissioner of the ACCS and Stephen Powles, lead counsel for the Prosecution in the Arms and Ammunition trial.
As President in November 2004, Mr. Michel would have had to be aware of the cargo of arms and ammunition that had landed, Mr. Valabhji explained to the court. The consignment was unloaded and cleared under the supervision of Brigadier Leopold Payet, who reported to the President. If such a task had been executed without the knowledge of the current Head of State, the Brigadier would have been court-martialed.
Instead, the Supreme Court, late last year, following the closure of the Prosecution case, ruled that Brigadier Leopold Payet had no case to answer. He was found “Not Guilty” of any terrorism or abuse of office charges in connection with the importation of arms and ammunition. This, Valabhji says, proves that the Brigadier imported, cleared and distributed the weapons with the knowledge and authorisation of his Commander-in-Chief, President Michel.
Mr.Valabhji further pointed out that witnesses have already testified that, after the passing of President Rene, the army had collected all weapons that were in the Armoury at Barbarons. President Faure, the then Commander-in-Chief, had been informed that some of these weapons had not been issued from the SDF armoury. They formed part of the same consignment of arms as those found at the Valabhji residence at Morne Blanc. The soldiers who testified for the Prosecution last year had said that no investigation of any of the weapons had been instigated by the President. This is proof, Mr. Valabhji asserted, that President Faure was already aware of the consignment and its locations. Why else would a Commander-in-Chief not question the existence of weapons in Seychelles that were not included in the inventory of the SDF armouries?Mr. Valabhji’s testimony followed the Chief Justice’s rejection of an application by the defence for further disclosure from the Prosecution.
In the application, the team for the Defence had referred to an earlier application that the Prosecution had made, whereby the Chief Justice had been provided with an envelope of documents from Steven Powles, the Prosecution’s lawyer. The latter had said that the envelope contained sensitive documents, and that the Chief Justice should decide if they should be disclosed to the defence. Govinden refused custody of the envelope. He ruled that the prosecution’s application was an abuse of process as it was passing on the duty of disclosure to the court.
Prosecution must decide if the documents meet the criteria for disclosure, that is, whether they undermine the Prosecution’s case or assist the Defence case. If the Court finds that the documents are disclosable but too sensitive to disclose, the Prosecution will have to drop the case against the defendants.
Instead of adhering to their disclosure duties, Powles prepared a document that contained a summarised list of the envelope’s contents.
Mrs. Scott, for the defence, when addressing the Court for the disclosure, revealed that Patrick Humphrey, head investigator for the ACCS and second in command in Operation Black Iron, now a whistleblower, spoke of a meeting he had attended with President Ramkalawan. The president had revealed that he knew of the cache of weapons at Morne Blanc before the searches had started.
Additionally, he also stated that in Humphrey’s presence, a phone conversation had ensued between Wavel Ramkalawan and the ex-female worker of President Michel, whereby they spoke about arms stored at Mr. Valabhji’s residence and in a caravan at L’Espace.
Patrick Humphrey further disclosed that Vanessa Penfold, an ex-officer of ACCS, may have proof of a conversation with May De Silva where the Commissioner of ACCS had revealed that she had known of the cache of arms at Morne Blanc before the execution of the search warrant.
A more shocking revelation from Humphrey was that he had asked both Powles and De Silva to reveal their prior knowledge of the presence of arms at Morne Blanc to the Defence as part of their duty of disclosure, but according to Mrs. Scott, that has not happened.
Rachel Scott, for the Defence, was asking for the disclosure of the contents of the envelope, which she says is relevant to the Defence, but the Attorney General, Vincent Pereira, a Sri Lankan national, argued that Mr. Humphrey had been terminated by ACCS for misconduct and have now placed the informant in danger. He also stated that the contents of the envelope would neither assist the Defence nor would it undermine the Prosecution case.
Chief Justice Govinden dismissed the application. Therefore, those documents will not be provided to the four defendants to be used as evidence at the trial. This is yet another setback for the case for the Defence. Mr.Valabhji is currently having to represent himself after his lead counsel, James Lewis KC,
withdrew from the case. Mr. Lewis had explained to the Court that he could not be part of a trial process that had prejudged his client. Following that, Chief Justice Govinden had refused to allow Mr. Valabhji the time required to secure legal counsel of his choice. This is a breach of the defendants’ fundamental right.
