CJ Twomey back in office today after being forced to leave residence |07 June 2016
Chief Justice Mathilda Twomey will be back in her office at the Supreme Court today after being forced to spend the long weekend away from her residence at Bel Eau.
She said personal attacks following a judicial ruling concerning December's presidential election forced her to take this decision.
The CJ wrote about the incidents of “abuse” in an open letter addressed to Seychelles National Party (SNP) leader Wavel Ramkalawan who is also a member of Linyon Demokratik Seselwa — a coalition of opposition parties.
In her letter posted on Facebook, CJ Twomey asked Mr Ramkalawan to “speak to your supporters and stop unleashing hatred and violence on the judiciary”.
“Some of your party supporters took the liberty to come to my house to abuse me… Attacking me personally and getting your crowds to repeat and chant contemptible remarks about me is to say the least irresponsible. Someone spat on me yesterday. Tomorrow it might be worse,” wrote CJ Twomey in her letter.
Speaking to Seychelles NATION, CJ Twomey said she will resume duty today and has “no intention of being intimidated and I shall continue to work for the country I love so dearly”.
CJ Twomey said she felt “abused by the personal remarks” which she described as “below the belt”.
The chief justice added that she has no problem with anyone doing politics, but “politicians should be responsible, and not attack people personally and should not be involved in character assassination”.
“I wrote the letter to Wavel (Ramkalawan) because I wanted to remind him of the truth and tell him that he was wrong to let Jean-François (Ferrari) talk lies about me. I can cope with this, but my adult children are hurting,” said the CJ.
She explained that judges don't make the law, but apply the law and do so without fear, favour or ill will even when it involves one’s friends.
“We welcome criticism and academic discussion about our judgment. If you disagree with our findings on the facts and law as interpreted you are free to appeal it,” wrote the CJ in her letter.
These incidents have come in the wake of the Constitutional Court’s ruling against the petitions contesting the results of the second round of last December’s presidential election. The decision was read out by three judges – Chief Justice Mathilda Twomey and Justices Dan Akiiki-Kiiza and Crawford Eliott McKee — on May 31.
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. The petitioner’s lawyer Bernard 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, 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.