Appeal’s board hears political parties’ case against police commissioner |24 April 2014

The Appeal’s Board of the Public Order Act (POA) yesterday heard a case brought against the police commissioner by two political parties, namely the Seychelles National Party (SNP) and the Seychellois United Party (SUP).
 
The two parties are appealing against a decision of the commissioner of police to forbid a rally which they had intended to stage at the Stad Popiler car park in the afternoon of the coming May 4.
The appeal is a historic one as it is the first to be presented to the board chaired by Justice Ranjan Perrera.

Replying to a notice of intent from the two parties to hold the meeting, the commissioner had not given any reasons for refusing permission, but had rather proposed them to move their gathering to the Freedom Square.

Representing the police chief yesterday, assistant principal state counsel George Thachett said that the police had decided to no longer grant permission for public meetings at the Stad Popiler car park.

He argued that the car park is in too close vicinity of the Magistrate’s Court and that a political meeting there will obstruct traffic.

He also added that the Freedom Square represents a safer area and the police would not have enough resources to control a riot at Stad Popiler in case things go out of hand.

Anthony Derjacques, the lawyer representing the SNP and SUP who presented the appeal, countered the above arguments by saying that the law states only four specific areas as forbidden to public gatherings. Those are the State House, the Court, National Assembly building and military zones. He added that various public manifestations are regularly held at the Stad Popiler car park, and as the political rally is planned for a Sunday afternoon, it will in no way hinder traffic.

He concluded that Stad Popiler is in central Victoria just as the Freedom Square, with even better vehicular access and exit.

To the police’s limited resources, he replied that this would not make any difference as the same resources would be used at any of the two venues. He even moved that political parties should not need permission from the police to organise public meetings and that the latter should ease law and order. He explained that this is why only a notice of intent and not a request is sent to the commissioner of police.

“The POA should facilitate democracy with an eye on law and order. If certain areas are considered no go, this is against democracy. Political meetings keep democracy alive. To deny political meetings is to deny freedom of expression. Furthermore, there has never been a law and order issue around opposition political meetings. The case does not involve mere convenience, but involves fundamental constitutional rights,” Mr Derjacques pointed out.

Judgment in this case will be served tomorrow afternoon. As this is the POA Appeal’s board first case, it is widely believed that its decision will create precedence and set norms for future political events and future appeals.