Constitutional court rules against election petitions |01 June 2016

 • Ramkalawan may appeal decision

Although it is not yet official, there are indications that Seychelles National Party (SNP) leader Wavel Ramkalawan may contest the decision taken by the Constitutional Court yesterday against the petitions contesting the results of the second round of last December’s presidential election.

The suggestion that the petitioner in the case may resort to the Court of Appeal as a last means of justice came from his lawyer Bernard Georges, after the three respondents – the Electoral Commission, elected president James Michel of Parti Lepep and the Attorney General – had won the case against the former Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly.

After coming out second in the first round, Mr Ramkalawan had contested the second round against Mr Michel, winning 49.85% of the votes against 50.15%.

This was after none of the six candidates contesting the first round had got more than 50% permitting the election of a president. The other four candidates were Patrick Pillay (Lalyans Seselwa), Alexia Amesbury (Seychelles Party for Social Justice and Democracy), David Pierre (Popular Democratic Movement), and Philip Boullé (independent candidate).

The petitions contesting the results were on two counts; that the Electoral Commission should have relied on votes cast and not valid votes to determine the 50% margin and that the voting process was marred with irregularities. Mr Georges had cited 14 of them, along with five other incidents.

Those included the following: Media reporting in favour of Mr Michel during the cooling off period prior to the election, the Agency for Social Protection and Parti Lepep activists distributing money without justification, announcement that IOT (Indian Ocean Tuna) workers would benefit from 13th month salary, offer by former President Albert Rene for Patrick Pillay to change side in return for a high governmental post, releasing a convict from prison so that his girlfriend can change allegiance, coaching old people to vote for Mr Michel, civil servants of influence asking subordinates to vote in his favour, taking ID cards from opposition supporters for them not to be able to vote, no reconciliation of register with names of voters who had cast their votes, number of votes cast not corresponding to number of ballot papers in some polling stations, etc. 

After listening to the case from January 14 this year, in a judgment broadcast live on national radio and television, the Constitutional Court finally ruled that only valid votes, of which there must be distinction from spoilt or rejected votes, can be counted. The judgment added that the intention of the voter must be clear in his or her vote and only the wish of the voter who clearly casts his vote is to be considered.

The court also ruled that in spite of irregularities, they would not have affected the election results and those responsible were not acting on behalf of the second respondent. It also noted that in spite of mistakes especially from the chief electoral officer, procedures in place did not permit a person to vote twice.

The judges have however suggested that a number of persons responsible for the irregularities may be struck off the electoral register. They include Mr Ramkalawan himself, for requesting the support of members of the Tamil community and offering them positions in case he was elected. Others, who were not heard during the trial, have been called to appear before the court next Tuesday.

Among them are the Seychelles People’s Defence forces chief of staff Colonel Clifford Roseline and Deacon Louis Agathine who allegedly asked soldiers to vote for Mr Michel; Lieutenant Colonel Simon Dine; Beryl Botsoie – a head teacher who allegedly asked teachers to also vote for President Michel; businessman James Lesperance who is suspected of taking ID cards from 15 labourers in return for money; and board chairman of the SCAA (Seychelles Civil Aviation Authority) David Savy.

The court has also warned against political activists who abuse their positions. It however added that though their actions in this case are inadmissible and reprehensible, there was no proof that they were acting in favour of the second respondent, nor of corrupt motive which could render the election results void.

Mr Ramkalawan himself refused to talk to journalists after the three judges – Chief Justice Mathilda Twomey and Justices Dan Akiiki-Kiiza and Crawford Eliott McKee — had taken almost four hours to read part of the 160-page judgments. He said he would rather be speaking at a public meeting of Linyon Demokratik Seselwa (LDS), the alliance of opposition parties which have come together to contest the forthcoming legislative election, which was to be held yesterday afternoon.

Although Mr Georges stated that the onus for the appeal falls on his client, he gave strong indications that they may contest the verdict before the country’s highest court.

“All that we were saying has been proved. All the irregularities have been accepted by the Constitutional Court. So if there is a victor today, it is Mr Ramkalawan along with the 31,000 people who voted for him. For some reasons, the court has however decided to rule against us based on some points,” Mr Georges said.

The seasoned lawyer is of the opinion that the court was not right in its decision, and has rather made a mistake.

“The court has stated the names of the persons responsible of irregularities, but says that they were not agents of Mr Michel. The court has made a mistake as the law does not say “agent” but “any person”. It has to appreciate the question of agency based on the facts presented. It has cited the wrong law and is faulty on those points. For example, the law says that illegal practices can affect election results. So I do not have to prove those irregularities,” Mr Georges further insisted.

As for the danger of his client being struck off the voters’ list, he reacted that it found the suggestion “strange as the court has named many irregularities on the other side, but has decided to punish the petitioner”. 

“If the court wants to strike Mr Ramkalawan off the register and does not want him to stand in future elections, we will decide what to do,” Mr Georges concluded.

President Michel’s lawyer Basil Hoareau, has reacted that his client will contest the appeal in case there is one, expressing confidence that “at the end of the day, the Court of Appeal will uphold the decision of the Constitutional Court”.

He added that if it has been established that some people have committed illegal practices, his client cannot be accountable for their actions, as he repeated that they are not his agents.

Mr Hoareau’s determination to face the appeal was echoed by Parti Lepep’s secretary general Peter Sinon who stated that in this eventuality, “we will be there for the next step”.

Both Mr Hoareau and Mr Sinon described the verdict which confirms the December election results as a victory for democracy and justice. They said the people had lived democracy to the fullest with an election loser being able to contest it in court, proving at the same time the independent functioning of one of its arms, the judiciary.

Describing the occasion as “historic”, Attorney General Rony Govinden also said it was a victory for democracy, where “if you do not accept election results, you can come to court to gain justice”. He added that his interventions as amicus curiae (friend of the Court) have helped in the decision.

Mr Govinden was also in agreement that the reprehensible actions must be addressed in order to improve on future election processes.

This was confirmed by the lawyer representing the Electoral Commission Samantha Aglaé who announced that the commission will be meeting shortly to study the judgments and take quick decisions as to how to improve procedures and make future elections more credible.

She agreed that though fair, the decisions have brought many clarifications on the electoral laws.

The court case which had held the Seychellois people’s breath since the start of this year, was surely a matter of high national interest.  Many people had turned up at the Supreme Court yesterday to hear it unfold. Although the judiciary staff added extra seats to the court room, it could not contain the entire crowd.  People were then diverted to the auditorium from where they could follow the television transmission.

Some Parti Lepep supporters started celebrating in front of the Court House after the verdict was announced. They could still be heard from the Maison du Peuple, their party’s headquarters, in the late hours of yesterday evening.