Challenges to Judicial independence in Seychelles

22 February 2019 · Carmel Rickard

WITH mounting international concern about the open conflict on the Seychelles judicial bench, a delegation of the Southern African Chief Justices’ Forum has visited the country and offered its help in resolving the situation. It has also volunteered its professional expertise with the legal reforms that are clearly needed in the Seychelles.

The forum is a voluntary association of chief justices from countries in East and Southern Africa, formed 15 years ago to promote a number of goals including contact between judiciaries in the region as well as support for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciaries in the region.

Among its members is the Seychelles and, in the light of what the forum described as the “recent developments” concerning the country’s judiciary, the chair of the forum, Namibia’s chief justice Hon. Peter Shivute and the forum’s deputy, Malawi’s chief justice Hon. Andrew Nyirenda, were invited by the judicial leaders of the Seychelles for a fact-finding mission. They were supported by a team of technical persons including Dr. Justice Alfred Mavedzenge and Mr. Everisto Pengele.

No details of the problems in the Seychelles were spelled out in the statement issued at the end of the visit, although the forum has undertaken “in due course” to produce a report with its findings and recommendations.

The statement however mentioned “two pending disciplinary matters” concerning members of the judiciary in the Seychelles.

For the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with the situation in the Seychelles, Jifa provides some background:

One of these disciplinary matters relates to a senior judge whose behaviour in relation to several matters he handled on the bench has been strongly criticized in an appeal judgment by his peers. In October 2016 the chief justice of the Seychelles also made a formal complaint against him to the constitutional appointments authority (the CAA) – the body tasked with recommending appointments and removals from the judiciary – and her complaints included a number of allegations of misconduct.

A tribunal was set up by the CAA to inquiry into the judge’s behaviour and the tribunal recommended his suspension. Following post-election political changes in the country, however, changes were also made to the CAA, and the new body objected to the establishment and recommendations of the tribunal. The CAA is a body of five members who are directly appointed by politicians. The tribunal continued its work, regardless, and in August 2017 recommended the judge be removed for misbehavior. While the president is constitutionally obliged to remove a judge under these circumstances, the president has not done so because there is a constitutional challenge against the validity of the tribunal’s proceedings.

In the meantime, the newly-constituted CAA appears to have aligned itself with the suspended judge, and has noted a number of complaints against the chief justice.

Then, earlier this year, the CAA wrote to the chief justice giving her notice of its decision to set up a tribunal to inquire into whether she should be removed from office.

This threat to the chief justice, coupled with criticism of the new CAA for not being an impartial body and the lack of presidential action to remove the judge whose dismissal was recommended 10 months ago, has left the judiciary in the Seychelles divided, at the same time threatening judicial independence and the rule of law.

It was against this background that the delegation from the chief justices’ forum urged that the disciplinary matters concerning members of the Seychelles judiciary should be handled “fairly, speedily and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and due process” and in a way that preserves the independence, integrity and dignity of the courts.”

In this article:

Exit Statement of the SACJF Fact Finding Mission in Seychelles

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.