Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission |18 October 2019

Commission hears more cases of victimisation and land acquisitions

Case 0069

A very emotional Georges Lefevre appeared before the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) yesterday to demand that family land acquired during the one party state is returned to the family along with compensation for loss of earnings.

Mr Lefevre, who was accompanied by his daughter Nathalie Lefevre, said that land belonging to the family at St Louis, Le Niol and Beau Vallon were acquired after the coup d’etat of June 1977 and sold or given to other people and the family was never compensated.

He noted that he also had a piece of land at Mount Simpson and that was also acquired without due compensation.

He said he also does not understand how his ex-wife got hold of part of his property at Mount Simpson.

Mr Lefevre explained that the family’s prime land at Beau Vallon was leased to a Gerry Legrand but the gentleman later sold the lease to Hotel Des Seychelles. He said that after the coup d’etat, the land was acquired from Hotel Des Seychelles and was later returned to the hotel owners.

Mr Lefevre noted though that his mother never wanted to lease or sell the property at Beau Vallon.

In the land acquisition process, he noted that he also lost his garage at Beau Vallon, which was dear to him and which was demolished. He said that he invested a lot in the garage which is now in ruins.

His daughter explained that as nothing had been done on this property, government had promised to return the land to her father but only upon receiving a payment. She noted that money for the return of the property had been paid since three years ago and up to now the property with the ruined garage has not been transferred to his father.

Mr Lefevre said that having lost mostly everything and through constant persecution and victimisation as he was not a supporter of the Albert Rene regime, he had no option but to leave the country and sought political asylum in the United States (US) with his family. He noted that he is still living in the US as he doesn’t even have a house in Seychelles.

He asked why the people in power under the leadership of the late President France Albert Rene did not acquire large properties belonging to their friends and families if they were seeking to distribute to those who had no land.

During the session he also reminisced about the good old days before the coup and the ordeal that Seychellois people had to endure under the one party state government. Mr Lefevre wondered how the people who were in power until recently got to become multi-millionaires as they all had nothing. He wanted to know if they got rich from sheer hard work, drug dealings or from the sale of lands which he said they had stolen from some Seychellois families.

The chairperson of the commission, Gabrielle Louise McIntyre, said in her rounding up of the session that his land acquisition case was very complicated and the commission had called the special advisor for Habitat, Infrastructure and Land Transport, Patrick Lablache, for further clarification.

Case 007

Following the testimony of her brother Georges Lefevre, Veronica (Vicky) Lanza in case 007 was the other member of the Lefevre family to come before the commission yesterday to complain on land that government acquired from the family after the coup d’etat.

Mrs Lanza spoke specifically on the family acquired land which is owned by Hotel Des Seychelles and another family property where part of the Savoy Resort and Spa has been built. Another piece of land she mentioned was the area at Beau Vallon where some chalets are being built stretching from the roadside up to the hillside. She said her mother bought these properties between 1946 and 1948.

Mrs Lanza noted that the family had sought for many years to reclaim their land from government which was left idle for a very long time. She noted that land was acquired maliciously and not in the national interest as indicated.

Mrs Lanza said that from documents the family has in its possession, the properties still legally belong to them. She noted all attempts by the family to win back the properties have led to nothing. She also wanted to know how much money the buyers had paid for the properties, who sold the properties to the actual owners and what options the family has to get back the property or to be compensated for it. She noted that the family siblings are being deprived of family assets meant to them.

A member of the commission, Marie Therese Purvis, explained that from documents the commission has obtained, some kind of payment was made by government and Hotel Des Seychelles to the family.

Mrs Lanza replied that there are certain letters which state that her mother was offered R400,000 for the properties but the family has no receipts or recollection of any money having been paid or received. Again the special advisor for Habitat, Infrastructure and Land Transport, Patrick Lablache, was mentioned by the commission as the ideal person to shed light on the case.

In the afternoon session, Mr Lablache appeared before the commission to clarify land acquisition cases 0013 (Anthony Hunt), 0014 (Holden Pierre), 0069 (Georges Lefevre) and 0070 (Veronica Lanza).

Mr Lablache noted that land acquisition is not authorised by him but by the ministers in charge in consultation with the president or in certain instances by the cabinet of ministers. He noted that all land acquisitions were held under the Land Acquisition Act, thus making the acquisitions legal.

He also urged all those who wish to know who, including himself, owns lands or not, to go to the Land registry for information.

Commenting on Mr Hunt’s property acquired on June 25, 1986, which was done in the national interest for housing and agriculture, Mr Lablache said that compensation of R470,000 plus 8% interest was paid to the claimant in February 1990.

But Mr Hunt, who seems not satisfied with the outcome, had requested, through his lawyer Bernard Georges in June 1994, for a review of the case which has not been materialised. Mr Lablache noted that this request for a review is not on the file at the ministry.

He said the case is no longer with the ministry but before the land tribunal. He noted that the best way forward to resolve the case is for it to be referred back to the attorney general. The commission agreed on the proposal.

As for the acquisition of Mr Pierre’s property at Anse Royal, Mr Lablache said that the ministry has no file on him related to the acquisition as government did not acquire any land from him. He noted though that there is only a new file that was done on him recently following a recent acquisition of a piece of land at Anse Louis which he owns one third, along with other members of the family, for which a sum of R19 million was paid.

Mr Lablache said that the property that Mr Pierre was referring to was acquired by government from Jeanne McQueen, who was the executrix of the estate on behalf of the heirs of Alexandre Deltel.

He made known that Mr Pierre was a legitimate son of Mr Detel and this was why he built his house on part of the property but he doesn’t have the title for the property other than if it is stated in the will of Mr Detel, something which does not concern the ministry.

Following a letter received in 1992 from Mr Pierre that he wanted to purchase the property from government, Mr Lablache said that government agreed to transfer the house for free and to subdivide the land and to retain a foreshore piece of land for parking, and to sell one plot to the son of Mr Pierre and one to his sister.

Mr Lablache said the reason the case had taken so long was because of tenants who had moved on the property.

He noted that as the survey has been done, the case can be resolved very easily by letting the two children of Mr Pierre know how much they have to pay for the land.

Mrs McIntyre said that it would be good if the case could be resolved as it had been outstanding since 1992, which to her, is quite a long time.

In cases 0069 and 0070, both of which are related, Mr Lablache said he had information regarding Veronica Lanza’s query about the plot of land where the Savoy Resort and Spa has now been built on which was part of original family property.

Mr Lablache said the case was part of the compulsory acquisition of the Beau Vallon foreshore consisting of the strip of land from Mrs Lanza’s Hotel opposite the Coral Strand Hotel up to the La Plage restaurant.

The two properties being claimed by Mrs Lanza now belongs to the Hotel Des Seychelles LTD. Mr Lablache said government acquired the land from a German gentleman (HisshanBamer) who was a share owner of Hotel Des Seychelles who failed to develop the property. He noted that from research done it shows on record that Hotel Des Seychelles had legally purchased the two properties, one in January 1970 and the other in March 1972.

Mr Lablache said that government had returned the land to Hotel Des Seychelles because it acquired it from the company. He acknowledged that at the date of acquisition of the properties by government, there was a mortgage of R400,000 in favour of Ina Lefevre and the heirs of Edward Lefevre who include Mrs Lanza.

Mr Lablache said after several negotiations, the government paid Mrs Lefevre R645,417 on May 22, 1996 as mortgage debt. He further explained that when government acquires land which is subject to a mortgage, the right of the mortgagee is converted automatically into a right to compensation.

Case 0010

In case 0010, Roy Beehary told the commission that he was arrested and tortured at the Grand Police Prison.

He said that several intelligence officers from the army came to his residence in an army truck and arrested him. He was brought to the Bel Eau army camp and later transferred to Grand Police.

Mr Beehary said that upon arrival in the night at Grand Police, he was brought before Robert Ernesta for interrogation where he demanded him to return the guns and the drugs. He said that he did not have any guns or drugs.

He further said that he was an army officer for one year and gave back his gun and ammunition in his possession the day he left the army. So, he was handcuffed to a pole with a plastic bag placed over his head and was beaten up by soldiers. He noted that at one time he was also burnt and slashed with sharp blades.

Mr Beehary said his torture went on until he passed out. He explained that he was released from the Grand Police prison after three days and was left by the roadside at La Louise barely able to walk. He was helped to his place by people who knew him where after he was brought to the hospital for treatment.

He said that he should be compensated for the torture and humiliation he endured at the Grand Police prison.

Mr Beehary has two more cases before the commission.

Case 0095

A very emotional Phillipe D’Offay de Rieux appeared before the commission complaining of victimisation he endured during the one party state.

He explained how he was constantly followed, harassed on the streets and at his residence. He said that at one time, there was an attempt to burn down his house at Anse Royal where the next day he picked up a uniform of the people’s militia, who were constantly outside his house in the night watching his movements.

Mr D’Offay de Rieux said he was victimised because he was a supporter of the late President James Mancham and not the system in place. He noted that he had a shop which was constantly vandalised.

He acknowledged that he was an opposition activist and was part of a group of around 150 people who planned and staged a strike against the one party state at the clock tower and he was arrested and spent three and a half months in prison.

In a clarification on behalf of the commission, Mrs McIntyre said that former high ranking army officer Leopold Payet did not receive the letter to appear before the commission on Wednesday contrary to what she said that Mr Payet had informed them that he had forgotten about the session.